Like I Said

Yesterday, I wrote:

I think this is the last time I am going to discuss this issue, because as careful as I have been to not say anything about Cindy personally, the jackasses on the far left are going to distort this post, lie, vilify, and attack anyway, and it just isn’t worth it to me to deal with their bullshit.

And today, ‘The Poorman offers up this:

It’s got everything: breathtaking incoherence, an elevation of trivial internet slights over the death of a mother’s son, paranoid delusions – the works. Please do read the whole thing – things this perfect don’t come around every day.

The proximate cause and context of all this is a little online soap opera which opens with Sheehan being called a “whore” and an Arab-loving traitor, among other things, by some dude named Erick. Anonymous people left nasty emails and even phone messages for our Erick (which is not nice so don’t do it), he says, and it’s Atrios’ fault, and Erick, as it turns out, is the reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaallllll victim here.

Hey Andrew- when you start out as a lying asshole, why should we waste any more time reading you? I mean, when you are going to start out by simply distorting what Erick said (because Andrew knows there is no difference between a whore and a media whore Think about it: what are the chances that a media whore like Gannon would turn out to be an actual whore?”), why should we even take you as honest? Nowhere did Erick caller her a traitor, or an ‘arab-lover.’ And I am far from being paranoid and delusional, considering the heaping pile of steaming nonsense you have written today.

Some dude named ‘Andrew’ goes on to scribble:

The upshot of the post appears to be that there is nothing necessarily wrong with being the mother of a dead soldier, provided you don’t let it influence your opinions in any way, and provided that you don’t feel that you are somehow entitled to an explanation of why, exactly, he was sent off to die. Failing this, you deserve whatever you get, and anybody who calls you a whore is protected by a Level 50 No-Backsies Force Field. This is certainly a step up from collage, but it is still something short of an actual response to the questions Cindy Sheehan wants the President to answer. Ah, the questions! Cole appears to have missed this little detail, insisting repeatedly that Sheehan has already met with the President, as if he was worried she might use this second opportunity to try to sell Bush a set of overpriced encyclopedias, or steal his silverware. She wants to ask “why the war that took her son’s life was started and why it is being continued.”

Dance along with the Poorman now, because ‘all Cindy wants is some questions answered.’ That is it! Just a few simple questions!

It’s worse than that, though, because even if Cindy Sheehan had no questions, she is, in herself, in her own story, an accusation. There are tens of thousands of Americans who have lost a loved one as a direct result of this war of choice with Iraq, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis. Each of the dead has a mother, and whether or not they camp out in front of Bush’s Ranch of Make-Believe, and whether or not they currently think the war was a good idea, and whether or not they even ever wondered about what it was and is all about, those mothers deserve a real answer.

This isn’t about Cindy Sheehan. Andrew, Atrios, all the folks at dKos couldn’t give a SHIT about Cindy Sheehan. This is about galvanizing support against the war, and not a whit about Cindy Sheehan and her ‘questions.’ And for some of them, this isn’t even about galvanizing support against the war- it is just pure politics.

But you will notice that Sheehan is essentially a “weapon”, a “tool”, “used” by nefarious and – yes, I’ll say it! – “evil” webloggers in order to generate mean emails against some dude named Erick. Or something. She isn’t any of those things. She’s a human being, a mother, and a fucking American, and she deserves a straight fucking answer from the President about why her son is dead.

Pretty good work there from the guy who wrote about the Global Struggles Against Strawmen. And here are the ‘questions’ Cindy wants answered:

“Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for? If the cause is so noble, why don’t you send your twins?”

And, for good measure, some demands:

“Honor our sacrifices by bringing our nation’s sons and daughters home from a war based on lies and deceptions.”

I can’t imagine why Bush hasn’t met with her. Again.

*** Update ***

Northrup responds:

I would like to stress here that Cole is not saying that this weblog is literally edited by some kind of giant, hyper-intelligent, dishonest anus, but merely that The Editors are analogous to a fibbing cornhole in our dealings with him. Now, as long time readers have no doubt suspected, this weblog is literally edited by an enormous, mendacious, disembodied anus.

It shows. At any rate, the bullshit continues in earnest:

… Cole responds, pointing out that Sheehan was not called a “whore” literally, but actually a “media whore”, which is a metaphorical kind of whore that doesn’t necessarily fuck people for money (Jeff Gannon nonwithstanding.) No, I won’t get out of here – that’s what he said. Go see for yourself. So if anybody thought that Erick was literally saying that Sheehan fucks people for money, please disabuse yourself of that notion forthwith!

Don’t feed me that bullshit. Erick’s original quote:

Cindy Sheehan’s son was killed in Iraq. She’s a grieving mother. Last year, the President met with Mrs. Sheehan, comforted her, and grieved with her. At the time, Mrs. Sheehan thought the President had done well and appreciated him. Enter August, no major news, and a media still smarting over the President’s re-election despite everything they threw at him. Cindy Sheehan returns entering stage right — this time a left wing media whore in the form of a grieving mother.

Which has morphed into the following at Eschaton:

Um, has Michelle Malkin talked to Cindy Sheehan’s son? Has Bill O’Reilly? Has Erick Erickson, who called Cindy Sheehan a whore over at redstate.org? If they haven’t talked to him, they should shut up, leave her alone, and defend their incoherent position on the Iraq war without hiding behind Cindy Sheehan’s dead son.

At MYDD:

Blogger Erick Erickson says Cindy Sheehan is a “whore in the form of a grieving mother”

The Poorman himself:

The proximate cause and context of all this is a little online soap opera which opens with Sheehan being called a “whore” and an Arab-loving traitor, among other things, by some dude named Erick.

And, my favorite, at Steve Gilliard’s site:

To call her a “left-wing whore” will affect how people see you and your site. Even your readers disagree with the sentiments here and their expression.

Where he just drops the word ‘media,’ but makes sure he gets the ‘whore’ part in. Funny how the metaphor looks like a literal use of the word ‘whore.’ Just one of those weird coincidences on the InterTrons!

Put it this way- If Erick has said she had become a ‘left-wing media hound,’ how many of these guys would have written posts showing outrage that Erick had called her a ‘hound?’ By conveniently dropping the word ‘media,’ the intent is to pass on to their readers that Erick called her something other than what he said.

Erick also stated the following, in his apology for calling her a media whore:

Amazing what happens when you take on a lefty sacred cow.

Why are the Editors not outraged OUTRAGED! that Erick called Cindy Sheehan a cow?

*** Update ***

Guess someone did take offense at Erick calling her a cow:






123 replies
  1. 1
    BumperStickerist says:

    Cindy’s Open Letter to George which she wrote in November, 2004 gives lie to everything that The Poorman, Atrios, Kos, et al are saying.

    Open Letter to George. scroll down about 1/2 screen.

  2. 2
    John S. says:

    Hey, I thought you said your last post about Cindy Sheehan was the last post you were going to post about her?

    Now you’re in for it, Mr. Cole…your bucket of tar and bag of feathers are being prepared in the blogosphere.

    Although I wonder:

    This isn’t about Cindy Sheehan. Andrew, Atrios, all the folks at dKos couldn’t give a SHIT about Cindy Sheehan. This is about galvanizing support against the war, and not a whit about Cindy Sheehan and her ‘questions.’

    Is there anyone who is allowed to comment on Mrs. Sheehan, or are those that sympathize with her automatically to be branded as having ulterior (and nefarious) motives?

    And just how exactly does one analyze what another person’s true intentions really are? I can agree that Mrs. Sheehan is being used by certain elements to make a point (and your Schiavo analogy rings somewhat true), however I don’t think you can roundly cast dispersions on any person that throws their two cents in on the matter.

  3. 3
    Emma Zahn says:

    I read the letter Cindy wrote that Bumperstickerist linked to a few days ago at RealClearPolitics.com. It kind of sounded like a declaration of war. Given the date of the letter she no doubt was disappointed in the results of the election. In the letter she is very direct about her feelings and her goals.

    About the same time I read another article (can’t remember where) about how the Bush Administration uses Crawford, Texas in August to control the flow of media stories. If true, then I applaud Cindy for turning it to her advantage.

    BTW, do you think the newly released 9/11 tapes will end Cindy’s 15 minutes in the spotlight? Isn’t it funny how 9/11 always pops up at convenient times.

  4. 4
    anthony says:

    dig it, john!

  5. 5
    anthony says:

    John,

    The Poorman writes satire.

    Ever heard of literary license? I’m not saying he can write things that are blatantly false, but its absurd to say he lied about what Erik wrote when he has a link to the piece in question. The readers can see exactly what Erick wrote.

    And you’re dodging the point of his piece, which was that you sound like a parody of 60’s radical.

    Preach it, man!

  6. 6
    DougJ says:

    These left-wing bloggers — Poorman, atrios, kos — are, quite simply, out of control. How can it be that spewing this kind of anti-American filth is allowed while we are at war? I am sure that the FEC or the Attorney General’s office could shut them down. Why haven’t they? This is underming the war agasint terror — words have effects. Free speech must be used responsibly.

    I am simply disgusted by what is going on in the far left blogosphere right now. Something must be done about this.

  7. 7
    Bob Munck says:

    I do think that The Poorman understated your level of incoherence, but of course he didn’t see today’s post.

    You go on at some length about “anti-Bush fervor” and hatred of Bush, but that’s really just cover for the fact that there’s widespread disagreement with and even disgust for Bush’s policies and his inept implementations of those policies. Attributing the strong feelings to something as irrational as hatred obscures the fact that the majority of the country has rationally come to the conclusion that Bush is causing great harm to us, our country, and our world.

  8. 8
    Bob says:

    Sheehan is doing political theater. When George Bush wore the codpiece and said bring them on, he was doing political theater. Bush’s schtick was effective in its time. Two and a half years later and Sheehan’s performance is scoring points.

    Anti-war emotions reached the tipping point (if we can use an abused cliche here) and Sheehan, on the side of the road, brings daily attention to Bush and his vacation. It’s getting reported on the hourly news. It’s cracked the mainstream media.

    By the way, I don’t object to Dub taking a five-week summer vacation. It’s very French, don’t you think? I think that some Democrat should reach across the aisle and propose a law making it mandatory for all workers in the US to get a five-week vacation, just like the President.

  9. 9
    Gary says:

    I think this should be required reading for everyone.

    http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.c.....eehan.html

  10. 10
    Defense Guy says:

    I don’t suppose any of the folks here realize that getting out of town in August is a tradition for our presidents. With both the USSC and Congress off ‘fishing’, the executive is the only game in town for a press that doesn’t take vacations.

    Those that don’t think the man is working are just naive.

  11. 11
    John Cole says:

    Bob Munck-

    You go on at some length about “anti-Bush fervor” and hatred of Bush, but that’s really just cover for the fact that there’s widespread disagreement with and even disgust for Bush’s policies and his inept implementations of those policies.

    Why do you think these are mutually exclusive? I would argue there is widespread hatred of Bush becuae of his policies and widespread hatred of his policies because of hatred for Bush.

  12. 12

    […] … Cole responds, pointing out that Sheehan was not called a “whore” literally, but actually a “media whore”, which is a metaphorical kind of whore that doesn’t necessarily fuck people for money (Jeff Gannon nonwithstanding.) No, I won’t get out of here – that’s what he said. Go see for yourself. So if anybody thought that Erick was literally saying that Sheehan fucks people for money, please disabuse yourself of that notion forthwith! He merely meant that she behaves analogously to a whore in her dealings with the media. Please adjust your views accordingly, and remember to always beware of metaphors. […]

  13. 13
    Bob Munck says:

    I would argue there is widespread hatred of Bush becuae of his policies and widespread hatred of his policies because of hatred for Bush.

    Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The former makes sense, but what would cause the latter? Spontaneous hatred, resulting in hatred of his policies? That is an obvious attempt to obscure or downplay the hatred for his policies by implying that a large part of it is caused by hatred of him. That’s wrong; his policies and his actions, both as governor and president, are what caused him to be widely hated. Before that, he was just a failed businessman who no one had heard of.

  14. 14
    DougJ says:

    I’m tired of the libruls complaining about Bush’s “vacations”. Spending time in Crawford is the perfect way to reconnect with the American people. And the five weeks is a WORKING vacation. So to compare it to France where the entire country does NOTHING for six weeks is ludicrous.

  15. 15
    M. Scott Eiland says:

    The former makes sense, but what would cause the latter?

    cough cough sore loserman cough cough

    All roads lead back to Florida.

  16. 16
    Gryn says:

    Wow do I feel stupid or what?

    Thank you for pointing out that that Erick said “whore” that he didn’t literally mean that Cindy was trading sex for money. No really, it’s so silly now that I think about it, everyone was getting upset thinking that Erick thought Cindy was a sex worker when he just meant she was parading her grief for her dead son in front of the media to bring attention to herself.

    Oh and thank you for also reading my mind in thinking that I don’t care whatsoever about Cindy herself. It takes a stellar intellect such as yours to divine intent so readily I bet. That’s right, I couldn’t give a shit about Cindy herself at all and it’s all part of my cynical partisan gamesmanship! YOU FOUND ME OUT! YOU WIN THE PRIZE!

    Your mamma must be so proud of you.

  17. 17
    JBaptist says:

    DougJ: Good point. I propose that a mandatory five-week vacation, the entirity of which must be spent clearing brush. This way we can all emulate our responsible leader.

  18. 18
    DougJ says:

    So true, Eiland. The libruls don’t understand that elections have consequences. Come to think of it, maybe they think that because they’ve done such a good job of controlling things WITHOUT winning elections for the last 25 years.

  19. 19
    Gryn says:

    I’m tired of the libruls complaining about Bush’s “vacations”. Spending time in Crawford is the perfect way to reconnect with the American people. And the five weeks is a WORKING vacation. So to compare it to France where the entire country does NOTHING for six weeks is ludicrous.

    Yes if only the French would host $25k a plate political party fundraisers while on their vacations would their wasted life finally be given some meaning.

  20. 20
    Mike S says:

    I don’t suppose any of the folks here realize that getting out of town in August is a tradition for our presidents

    50 vacations in less than 5 years. 5 weeks this vacation alone.

  21. 21
    CaseyL says:

    I didn’t “hate” Bush when he first took office. I didn’t like him, and what I heard about his character didn’t enchant me, but “hatred”? No.

    Watching him let his energy biz cronies run the biggest scam since the South American Railroad grift pissed me off pretty good. But, hey, it’s not like we didn’t know Bush was a corporate tool.

    The way he turned his back on the Israel-Palestine issue, stopped the Korean Rapproachment talks dead in their tracks, and pissed on treaties left and right upset me. But it’s not like any of that was a surprise, either. Bush made it clear that he had little knowledge of the world and zero interest in acquiring any; and also that his foreign policy would basically consist of doing the opposite of whatever Clinton had done.

    By this point I figured the guy was obviously not up to the job, one of those peculiar sorts who’s not only ignorant but proud of being ignorant. I figured we were in for a few years of Keystone Kops, and then in 2004 we’d get someone in the WH who knew what they were doing.

    Then came 9/11. I wanted the US to go after whoever did it. I supported the war in Afghanistan. I thought, hey, maybe Bush has what it takes to rise to the occasion. Maybe he is like Prince Hal, a wastrel good-for-nothing redeemed by one towering event.

    Then came Iraq. Iraq made no sense from the start. Why were we going to Iraq when we hadn’t caught OBL yet? Why were we going to Iraq before we were done building a stable democracy in Afghanistan? Why were we going to Iraq when Iraq had had nothing to do with 9/11? Why were we going to Iraq when the weapons inspectors had gone back in, were once again searching for WMDs, and weren’t finding any? Why were we going to Iraq when even our allies weren’t supporting the endeavor? Why were we in such a damn hurry to go to war in Iraq? Why was the WH impugning the patriotism of everyone who asked these questions?

    Then came “Bring it on!” and “Mission Accomplished!” and making fun of our soldiers who were dying while looking for WMDs. And that’s when my low opinion of Bush started to harden into something other than bemused contempt.

    Because now, it wasn’t just about letting his cronies steal a few hundred million dollars, it wasn’t just about an overgrown frat boy in over his head, it wasn’t just about an ignorant reactionary ruining in one fell swoop what better men had spent decades building.

    No: now it was about a man who was sacrificing lives, American lives and Iraqi lives, in a needless, heedless, badly planned war that seemed more about Bush’s personal issues than about the nation’s defense. It was Bush using Iraq as his personal pokey stick, only he was sending our soldiers out there to die. He was sending them without enough equipment, without enough supplies (the first summer in Iraq, soldiers had to buy their own water), and without the foggiest idea of what to do if “Plan A: We Will Be Greeted As Liberators” didn’t pan out. And when it came to “nation building,” Bush sent cronies and ideologues and blue-sky fantasists over there instead of civil engineers and educators and disaster recovery experts.

    It wasn’t just that he didn’t know how to win. It was as if he didn’t care if we won, just as long as he got to say “I got rid of Saddam” and as long as his cronies could rake in a few billion dollars of taxpayer money. He got downright ornery when asked to explain what was going on in Iraq, like it was an act of lese majeste to demand explanations. He couldn’t answer the questions, either, except to repeat campaign boilerplate.

    People are dying in Bush’s war by the dozens every day, every week, every month. He took a country already in despair and let loose chaos, anarchy, terrorism. It’s starting to look as though Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein. Can you imagine that? That after all the death and destruction, we’ll likely leave Iraq worse off than it was?

    And for what? FOR WHAT, GODDAMMIT?

    So I’d have to say Bush got me to hate him the old-fashioned way. By earning it.

  22. 22
    capelza says:

    CaseyL says it perfectly for me. When he squeaked by in 2000, I was philosophical, it would only be four years and then he’d be gone. Mediocre.

    It is what he’s doine since, along with the rest of the TX Cabal in the admin and in Congress (okay TX cabal is a sweeping generalisation..sort of) that makes me absolutely abhor the little man and his cronies.

    P.S. Thank you John Cole for deleting that post last night. I was groggy with late night caffiene induced silliness, but I don’t think my post deserved the piquant comment it got.

  23. 23
    mac Buckets says:

    That’s wrong; his policies and his actions, both as governor and president, are what caused him to be widely hated.

    Suuuuure, they did. I guess we imagined all those “Not My President” screeds the millisecond after Bush beat Gore. It was Bush’s unnamed “policies” in 2000 (like, ummmmmmm, tax cuts, and ermmmmm, a strong military) that produced the hate! We’re all really buying that. Democrats have a seething, virulent hatred for every politician who talks about tax cuts, right? Uh, right?

    And it seems as though his policies as Governor weren’t cause for hatred among Democrats in Texas who were actually affected by those policies. Bush won re-election with a larger percentage of the vote than his original election, and he won an impressive 27% of the Democrat vote, when low-teen contrapartisan numbers were normal.

    I understand that you cede the all-important moral high-ground if you admit that the Big Democrats hated Bush from Day Zero because of Florida 2000 and how he ended the Clinton wannabe-dynasty, but the facts don’t bear out much else.

    John,

    Why on earth would you give the time of day to this “Poorman” guy? You’re in a different league — the Red Sox don’t play the Fresno Grizzlies. He was well and truly “covered” by your previous post about the abhorrent lefy bloggers capitalizing on Sheehan. His three readers have already sent their lame “you tell ’ems” to his comments section. That is the extent of his influence (and reading his unironic, stilted attempts at mock-naivety, I can see why).

    Being called unhinged by the unhinged and unread is something you might want to let slide, no matter how hard it is not to “slap the punks down.” But easy for me to say.

  24. 24
    DougJ says:

    Great post, mac. The libruls claim to take issue with Bush’s policies, but the truth, as you say, is that they hated him the moment he won in 2000. They viewed him as a usurper who prevented the Democratic heir apparent from taking his “rightful” place on the throne.

    The obvious hypocrisy and contradictions in their opposition to the Iraq war are simply laughable. For years, the Dems championed nation-building — most notably in Bosnia, which has turned into a disaster — but when Bush decided it was time to bring democracy to the Middle East, they screamed bloddy murder and called him a liar (not true — our rationale for the invasion has not changed one whit since day one), an agressor (not true — we were forced into Iraq by Saddam’s intransigence on WMD), and a political opportunist (not true — Iraq has hardly helped Bush politically).

    I think their real problem is that Bush took one of their pet projects — nation building — and showed them how do it right. Rather than wasting billions of dollars on a boondoggle like Bosnia, we’re now building a nation in a part of the world with tremendous strategic importance. And unlike Bosnia, which has turned into a hornet’s nest of ethnic strife, Iraq is well on its way to becoming a stable democarcy.

  25. 25
    Steve says:

    You keep trying to separate Cindy’s anti-war agenda from other people’s anti-war agenda, so you can make this argument that other people are “using” her. But they all want to end the war. They all have a common agenda. If you are saying that those who have been against the war from day 1 must line up in a separate box from those who have recently come to have questions, etc., then I have to disagree.

  26. 26

    Well actually, within 15 minutes of calling her a sacred cow I started getting emails attacking me for calling her a cow.

  27. 27
    Zifnab says:

    John Cole:

    Why do you think these are mutually exclusive? I would argue there is widespread hatred of Bush becuae of his policies and widespread hatred of his policies because of hatred for Bush.

    It’s not like I just don’t like his haircut or the way he dresses. I’ll even forgive him for butchering the word nuclear or forgetting the name of the Prime Minister of Pakastan. Very few people have a problem with Bush as an individual, from what I’ve seen. If Bush changed his domestic and foreign policy to a more moderate stance he would garner more moderate support. If he goes father to the right, he’ll enrage more people to the left of him. His stance on politics is directly related to his public opinion. Not his lack of facial hair or the car he drives or even the (R) in front of his name.

    So true, Eiland. The libruls don’t understand that elections have consequences. Come to think of it, maybe they think that because they’ve done such a good job of controlling things WITHOUT winning elections for the last 25 years.

    And that comment doesn’t even make sense.

  28. 28
    bkny says:

    i came across the following post about a similar incident and how president clinton behaved and thought it an interesting contrast to the coward presently hunkered down at his texas pig farm:

    In October 1993, Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randy Shugart were killed during the Battle of Mogadishu trying to rescue a helicopter crew. They were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

    At the White House presentation ceremony, SFC Shugart’s father, Herb, launched an angry, personal attack on President Clinton, blaming him for his son’s death. The vulgar diatribe lasted for several minutes, during which President Clinton endured the embittered father’s wrath.

    At the time, I read about this incident in a German newspaper, but today the only on-line references I could find are on right-wing websites – all of which find Herb Shugart’s behavior quite praiseworthy. (I won’t link to those sites, but you can find a nice example at Powerslime.)

    However, the German news article I read contained something you won’t find on any of the wingnut sites. The Secret Service had warned President Clinton beforehand that Herb Shugart, a Clinton-hater who had been quite vocal since his son’s death, was planning to cause an unpleasant scene at the presentation ceremony. Still, President Clinton chose to personally present the posthumous Medal of Honor to Mr. Shugart for his son’s valor and sacrifice.

    It may be helpful to remember that President George H. W. Bush – not President Clinton – ordered US troops into Somalia shortly after he lost the 1992 election. …
    posted by yankeedoodle : 6:38 AM

    http://dailywarnews.blogspot.c.....9791077630

  29. 29
    dave says:

    One thing nobody has to worry about: lying fucking scumbags like yourself getting your brains blown out in Iraq and your mothers showing any emotion about it all.

    Because cowardly scum like yourself will never get off their fat ass and stand up for what they “believe.”

    Fuck you, brownshirts. Crawl back into your slimehole.

  30. 30
    Porco Rosso says:

    I find it odd that people on the right say Mrs. Sheehan has already met with Bush. How many times did Jack Abromoff meet with Bush?

  31. 31
    DougJ says:

    Bkny, the trouble with Clinton doing this is that to see the president of the United States attacks like this diminishes respect for the office of the presidency. I’m sure Clinton meant well with that, but after a certain point “I feel your pain” just makes the president look weak, rather than strong. Same for the endless apologizing that he did. That’s not how a strong leader does things. It’s not how this president does things.

  32. 32
    Nelson Muntz says:

    Ha Ha!

  33. 33
    BrianD says:

    When using a word like “whore,” it’s important to use it right. Its use requires rules, and I would like to propose one, at bare minimum: that it never be used to describe a dead soldier’s mother. Simple as that.

  34. 34
    kc says:

    Bkny, the trouble with Clinton doing this is that to see the president of the United States attacks like this diminishes respect for the office of the presidency. I’m sure Clinton meant well with that, but after a certain point “I feel your pain” just makes the president look weak

    So you’re saying Bush’s cowardly refusal to face his detractors serves a larger purpose – that is, maintaining “respect for the office of the presidency.”

    It doesn’t affect my respect for the office itself, but I’d sure have more respect for Bush the man if he wasn’t such a pussy.

    (“Pussy” seems an appropriate term, since we’re wantonly throwing words like “pimp” and “whore” around here.)

  35. 35
    ihateemo says:

    “What did my son die for? If the cause is so noble, why don’t you send your twins?”

    Uhm, those are actually perfectly good questions to ask. Especially the last one.

  36. 36
    DougJ says:

    “So you’re saying Bush’s cowardly refusal to face his detractors serves a larger purpose – that is, maintaining “respect for the office of the presidency.””

    I wouldn’t put it like you did, obviously, but, yes, his not meeting with her does help preserve the dignity of the presidency. You should try to understand — and I know that liberals don’t agree with me on this, but I’ll try to explain again — that symbols matter. The president is not just a man for people to yell at, the answerer of a complaint line as it were, he is our leader, our commander-in-chief, the symbol of our nation. He should be seen as strong, not infallible exactly but certainly strong, resolute, above the fray. It’s the same way that the flag is not just a piece of cloth, it’s what millions of Americans fought and died for. It’s not something to be burned in protest, it’s something to be revered as we revere their sacrifice.

    Without these symbols, the moral fiber of our country erodes. It’s eroded a lot the last 40 years as the left has assaulted these symbols and tried to demystify them. And we are the poorer for it, make no mistake.

  37. 37
    KC says:

    I’ve stayed away from the Cindy Sheehan story because well . . . I guess I’m not all that interested. But I do have to say, the fact that she is angry at the President and demanding he bring the troops home (a position I’m not convinced is in our best interest right now) is what she wants and has a right to do. Quite frankly, people have a right to oppose this war, they have a right to try and get media attention, and they have a right to have their message heard if they can get it out there. What’s the big deal? If she wants to be a public spectacle, then she wants to be one. I mean, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the righteous crowd get their message out there everday, always in a big way since they have huge platforms. She’s got a platform now and she’s running with it. So what? There are people who don’t like this war and this administration, that’s life. What’s the big hubbub about?

  38. 38
    capelza says:

    The POTUS is not a symbol, he is the chief PAID EMPLOYEE of the American people. He should be right in the middle of the fray, not elevated on a pedestal. A symbol is an inanimate object, or someone like the Queen of England.

    And Doug, millions of Americans did NOT die for a piece of cloth, at least I certainly hope so.

  39. 39
    Mike S says:

    Interesting difference between left an right reactions to phone calls berating people and their employers. Armando told people to stop and appoligised to Erick. Michele Malkin thanked her readers for getting someone fired.

    Of course she’s a right wing darling so I don’t expect many to care. I’m pretty sure that John Cole would decry it but I wonder if he’ll post or write an update about it.

  40. 40
    Frank says:

    Nice trolling Mr. Cole.

  41. 41
    Bob Munck says:

    DougJ, I’m awed by your subtlety.

  42. 42
    James Emerson says:

    CaseyL gets my vote for best rant of the day, or maybe even the week. He certainly summed up how I felt about Bush before Bush used 9/11 as a political bludgeon…and afterwards

    Until 9/11, I thought Bush a mere buffoon. The thought that he may be the political reincarnation of a John Gacy never entered my mind. But then I must live a sheltered life, because I always believed the political process somehow separates the chaff from the wheat, and the wheat…not the chaff…goes on to get elected. I was wrong. Apparently concentrated wealth and ideology are entirely capable of sending us chaff disguised as wheat, and now nearly 1900 young Americans have died because the chaff is…well…is chaff.

    But at least NOW a few principled conservatives see the danger the man poses to the nation, and have become less timid about asking WTF is going on here. It’s a trend that should continue building into a movement. They don’t have to become Democrats or ‘libruls’ or even traitors like Cindy Sheehan. Afterall, this is their democracy too, and they should be rightly worried about the war being waged by corporate greed and by religious loons against the American middle class and American scientific thought. They have reason to fear the politically ascendant irrationalities of corporate greed and theology conspiring together and running the show, for the bastard child of greed and theology is fascism.

    But the clown show in DC goes on, and still too many conservatives blindly skip down the path to the destruction of America, urged on by the guys in clown makeup holding a string of colorful balloons.

    Nowadays…I rarely discuss Bush without a few choice adjectives seeping into even polite conversations. Adjectives that would make a sailor blush, and it does seem that more and more conversations end with conservatives joining me with a heartfelt round of WTF! So I ask the loyalists out there, just what does it take to knock those blinders off?

    I second CaseyL’s closing. I never hated Bush in the beginning. I never liked him much either, for there was plenty of evidence back then to suggest he wouldn’t govern from the center, and I supported the war in Afghanistan as being a good step in the GWOT (or is it the GSAVE now?). But he has done everthing in his power since then to earn my emnity.

  43. 43
    james tabarez says:

    Shame on you. Your attack against a Gold Star mother and calling her a whore has embarrassed all of us who support the troops. you have hurt our cause.

  44. 44
    Mr. Twister says:

    Hey DougJ, please explain again how Clinton was a puss and Bush is such a manly man.

    http://www.dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

    Rant of the Day

    In October 1993, Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randy Shugart were killed during the Battle of Mogadishu trying to rescue a helicopter crew. They were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

    At the White House presentation ceremony, SFC Shugart’s father, Herb, launched an angry, personal attack on President Clinton, blaming him for his son’s death. The vulgar diatribe lasted for several minutes, during which President Clinton endured the embittered father’s wrath.

    At the time, I read about this incident in a German newspaper, but today the only on-line references I could find are on right-wing websites – all of which find Herb Shugart’s behavior quite praiseworthy. (I won’t link to those sites, but you can find a nice example at Powerslime.)

    However, the German news article I read contained something you won’t find on any of the wingnut sites. The Secret Service had warned President Clinton beforehand that Herb Shugart, a Clinton-hater who had been quite vocal since his son’s death, was planning to cause an unpleasant scene at the presentation ceremony. Still, President Clinton chose to personally present the posthumous Medal of Honor to Mr. Shugart for his son’s valor and sacrifice.

    It may be helpful to remember that President George H. W. Bush – not President Clinton – ordered US troops into Somalia shortly after he lost the 1992 election.

    Yesterday, a cowardly George W. Bush sped past Cindy Sheehan – twice – inside his blast-proof Presidential limousine as he went to an invitation-only fundraiser. Bush has spent the past week hiding from this woman, whose son died in a Baghdad firefight.

    Bush fears Cindy Sheehan. He fears a tongue-lashing from an angry parent.

    Bush is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

    YD

  45. 45
    KC says:

    John’s post wen a little over my head because I’ve missed most of the Sheehan thing, but now I see the light. That’s pretty dispicable for lefties to take “media whore” and change it to “whore.” The left employs the phrase “media whore” all the time, after all. There was a whole lefty website dedicated to the phrase at one point. And calling that guy’s office and harrassing him and his secretary is way out of line. I can’t see why some on the left can’t admit it and apologize. However, I do note that at least dkos did the right thing, at least according to Mike S.

    As for the general Cindy Sheehan thing, I’ll stick with my above post defending her right to be a public spectacle.

  46. 46
    darling nicky says:

    john cole, you are one dumb fuck.

  47. 47
    David Kellogg says:

    Seriously, John, what about the Poor Man’s literary critique? Aren’t you just a little embarrassed to be writing like that? I mean, unless you’re on peyote or something. (And before you answer, please know I am NOT the guy who directed Inspector Gadget, so don’t bring that up against me when comparing artistic bona fides.)

  48. 48
    mac Buckets says:

    “What did my son die for? If the cause is so noble, why don’t you send your twins?”

    Uhm, those are actually perfectly good questions to ask. Especially the last one.

    No, actually, those are hyper-moronic questions, posed only by those too ignorant of our military and political system to see past their own simpleminded agenda.

    All Bush would have to say is, “Why don’t I send my daughters? Because that would be illegal, you F-ing retard.” Of course, he’d be nicer about it.

  49. 49
    John Cole says:

    Seriously, John, what about the Poor Man’s literary critique? Aren’t you just a little embarrassed to be writing like that? I mean, unless you’re on peyote or something. (And before you answer, please know I am NOT the guy who directed Inspector Gadget, so don’t bring that up against me when comparing artistic bona fides.)

    Embarassed about my writing style? Constantly. On a daily basis. And let’s not even mention my typing.

    And I know nothing about Inspector Gadget.

  50. 50
    Peter T. says:

    Actually I don’t think that in this context ‘media whore’ is any less offensive than ‘whore’. ‘Whore’ would have been just mindlessly offensive. ‘Media whore’ implies that Mrs Sheehan is protesting due to egotism or some purpose other than her stated purpose, which is protesting what she deems and unjust and unwise war. Fox news and its sympathizers are intent on portraying Mrs Sheehan as a tool of ‘the far left’, rather than accepting what she says at face value and disagreeing with it. Pro-war people have every right to disagree with Mrs Sheehan, and to form counter demonstrations of their own. However, those who baselessly question Sheehan’s motives, or who, like Michele Malkin, seem to know the views of her late son better than Mrs Sheehan, step outside the bounds of rational argument. And they deserve a nice pot of ordure dumped (figuratively) on their empty heads.

  51. 51
    Zifnab says:

    No, actually, those are hyper-moronic questions, posed only by those too ignorant of our military and political system to see past their own simpleminded agenda.

    There’s no such thing as stupid questions, just stupid people. The question “Why are we in Iraq?” has been asked many, many times. The answer has changed numerous times as well. Are we there to get rid of WMDs? To punish Saddam? To democratize the country? To secure our oil needs? To wipe out a nest of terrorists? To imperialize the Middle East? To free it from fundamentalism? To Christianize it? To make Haliburton some money? To kill 18-year-old boys for our own sick amusement?

    While some of the hypothesis might be dumb or wrong (I don’t think we’re a nation of saddists and I also don’t think Iraq was harboring any serious terrorist threats), the question is still very valid. Cindy Sheehan isn’t special for asking the question, but she’s special because if anyone deserves an answer – a straight, direct, honest answer – its her.

  52. 52
    upyernoz says:

    i’m sorry john, having read both sides of this one, i gotta say that the poor man’s post is really brilliant and extremely well-written, and you just come off as a mean jerk. he really seems to get you on each and every point. better luck next time…

  53. 53
    TallDave says:

    Maybe some of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi mothers who are still digging their sons out of mass graves because of Saddam Hussein could meet with Mrs. Sheehan, and she could explain to them why their sons don’t matter.

  54. 54
    John Cole says:

    Upyernoz- I will remember to lie, distort, and misquote like the Poorman in my next post, but also try to be funny and well-written to keep your support.

  55. 55
    James Emerson says:

    Maybe some of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi mothers who are still digging their sons out of mass graves because of Saddam Hussein could meet with Mrs. Sheehan, and she could explain to them why their sons don’t matter.

    No need…

    Thay can just speak with the relatives of the estimated 100,000 Iraqis who died because of Bush’s war( and that was last Summer’s estimate)…

  56. 56
    TallDave says:

    Thay can just speak with the relatives of the estimated 100,000 Iraqis who died because of Bush’s war

    The estimate of civilian casualties is closer to 15,000.

    Now, if you want to talk about excess deaths, which is the 100,000 Lancet #, OK. First off the 95% confidence level starts at only 8,000, and secondly the number for Saddam would be close to 10 million.

    But nice try.

  57. 57
    KC says:

    I sort of agree with this part of what Peter T says:

    Fox news and its sympathizers are intent on portraying Mrs Sheehan as a tool of ‘the far left’, rather than accepting what she says at face value and disagreeing with it.

    Sheehan isn’t being made a tool, she’s doing what she wants to do, oppose the war and the President. She’s got every right to do this. She’s also got a right to do the same thing people on the right do, put themselves on a platform, make a scene, and get their message out. O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Malkin, Cavuto, Matthews, the whole lot of them, have popular platforms to do whatever they want to to push their viewpoints. For people who don’t have similar platforms, such as Sheehan, they have to make one. That’s what she has done. Same goes for James Dobson, who’ll be holding Justice Sunday II pretty soon. I just don’t see the big deal.

  58. 58
    Reasonable Man says:

    You’re seriously outraged that a man gets a reputation for calling a woman a “whore” when he REALLY only called her a “media whore”?

    Seriously?

    Fucking unbelievable.

  59. 59
    DougJ says:

    KC, the difference is that O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Malkin, and Cavuto (I won’t put Matthews in this group) have a track record of using their platform responsibly. That’s the difference between them and Cindy Sheehan. The others are all veteran journalists, while she has been thrust into the spotlight without any background or, apparently, any sense of what is appropriate. So I think the media is wrong to give her so much attention.

  60. 60
    DougJ says:

    “All Bush would have to say is, “Why don’t I send my daughters? Because that would be illegal, you F-ing retard.””

    I think I heard on the radio yesterday that it is illegal for children of the president to serve in war, the rationale being that they would be targets for kidnapping and the like due to all the publicity. Is that right? I can’t remember what the rule is exactly.

  61. 61
    Reasonable Man says:

    How about a post on how Drudge and Bill O’Reilley and Michelle Malkin are lying about Sheehan? Isn’t that outrageous, how full of “bullshit” those “assholes” are?

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

    See how the Right gets together in it’s echo chamber and lies just start bouncing around?

  62. 62
    mere mortal says:

    “This isn’t about Cindy Sheehan. Andrew, Atrios, all the folks at dKos couldn’t give a SH*T about Cindy Sheehan.”

    So, Mr. Cole, “when you start out as a lying a**hole, why should we waste any more time reading you?”

    It seems clear that you do not like the liberal webloggers, at least the ones you list, at least about this issue, but that doesn’t make it ok to lie.

    I assure you that someone can care about a person and their loss, while also making a political or social point. You must know this. But you chose to lie.

    You disagree with the bloggers you listed, that’s fine. Refute their points, don’t just lie.
    If you ever calm down enough to reflect on your behavior, you should apologize for your lazy lie on your site, and probably also apologize in e-mail to the individuals at whom you directed your slanderous lie.

    Unless you think lying is no big deal, in which case the third line of your post is a bit of a non-sequitur. Or perhaps if lying is alright when you do it, just not when others do it, well again the rhetorical question you posted in your third line applies.

    – mere mortal

  63. 63
    DougJ says:

    “Refute their points”

    Uh, he did. Several times over.

  64. 64
    TallDave says:

    Sheehan has every right to say whatever she wants, and the media have every right to turn it into a giant circus if they want. Or they could ignore it except to undermine it, like they did with the Swift Vets and the unfolding Air Enron scandal. It’s a free country.

    Speaking of which, there are counter-protesters there now, with signs pointing out Saddam’s atrocities.

  65. 65
    James Emerson says:

    Now, if you want to talk about excess deaths, which is the 100,000 Lancet #, OK. First off the 95% confidence level starts at only 8,000, and secondly the number for Saddam would be close to 10 million.

    Not to confuse you, but the survey indicated a statistical range between 8,000 and 198,000 as being the EXTREME probabilities with 98,000 being the number with which they had the MOST confidence in reporting.

    If you’re going to be honest in using their numbers to contest their numbers you would have to mention the equal, but diminished, confidence levels on both sides of their optimum (most confident) value.

    Now did you pull that 10 million number out of your ass or what?

  66. 66
    stickler says:

    Oh, my God. I understand it all now. Just put these two statements next to one another and we finally can see why DougJ displays all the world-wisdom of a high-school freshman:

    KC, the difference is that O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Malkin, and Cavuto (I won’t put Matthews in this group) have a track record of using their platform responsibly.

    … and …

    I think I heard on the radio yesterday that it is illegal for children of the president to serve in war…

    DougJ, there are things called “books” and “magazines,” many of which contain “facts” which can be cross-referenced and checked against reliable data sets. Careful people can even glean useful information from the Internets.

    By comparison, Sean Hannity spent the better part of a week this past spring broadcasting live from the front of a hospice where a brain-dead woman was dying; he told his audience — repeatedly, and with a straight face — that Terry Schiavo could get up and dance the rumba if only her treatment was changed. He touted the diagnosis of a “Nobel-nominated” expert, a man who had no more connection to the Nobel prize committee than the nearest Stockholm McDonald’s franchise. Her autopsy, remember, proved that her brain was, indeed, liquified.

    Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, et. al. lie to their audience every damned day. If you were literate, you’d know this.

  67. 67
    DougJ says:

    “Her autopsy, remember, proved that her brain was, indeed, liquified.”

    Proved? Really, that’s not what I remember reading, mister “cross reference your facts”. They THEORIZED that PARTS of her brain were liquified.

  68. 68
    mere mortal says:

    DougJ Says:

    “Refute their points”

    Uh, he did. Several times over.

    Just so that I’m clear on this, DougJ, if I were to allow that what you wrote is accurate, does that wash away Mr. Cole’s lie? Is the lie thereby excused?

    Or do you somehow contend that his statement “This isn’t about Cindy Sheehan. Andrew, Atrios, all the folks at dKos couldn’t give a SH*T about Cindy Sheehan” was supported in any way by Mr. Cole?

    I’ll allow that you can honestly hold the position that Mr. Cole is a liar who refuted his opponents arguments.

    – mere mortal

  69. 69
    TallDave says:

    James Emerson,

    No, the whole range is a 95% probability interval. The reason you do a 95% confidence interval is so that you can make a claim that has some statistical certitude. The only such claim that can be made from the Lancet data is that at least 8,000 and no more than 194,000 died. The 100,000 is, indeed, “pulled out of your ass,” as it has very little statistical weight behind it.

    But, accepting that number of excess deaths, and the common estimates of around 20,000 actual casualties, we get a ratio of 5:1. Applying that ratio to the approx 2 million casualties known to have been caused by Saddam’s regime (1.1 million in the Iran-Iraq war, the hundreds of thousands killed in Shia and Kurd uprisings, the Kuwait invasion, the genocide of the Marsh Arabs, those killed in the day-to-day brutality of the regime), we come to a number of about 10 million excess deaths from Saddam’s regime. That’s also assuming Saddam’s actions were no more destructive in terms of excess deaths than coalition actions, which is pretty generous to Saddam.

  70. 70
    DougJ says:

    Look, mere mortal, you’re just angry because John has finally moved away from Bush-bashing RINO mode into calling out the loony left mode. And it’s about time. John is dead-on right about the excesses of the left here — too many of them hate America, and many truly have no right to the opinions they express.

  71. 71
    TallDave says:

    In case there’s any confusion, “excess deaths” includes pretty much everything. Someone died of a cold, that’s in there. The idea is to measure the indirect effects, like environmental damage, food shortages, disease from lack of sanitation, etc.

  72. 72
    Peter T. says:

    Well DougJ, maybe you were listening to one of the fine journalists you mention when you heard it was illegal for the president’s kids to serve in the military. If so, this law has been passed since WWII, when all four of FDR’s sons were in the service. Service among the children of politicians was pretty much universal in that war. But then that was a real war.
    As to Limbaugh et al being journalists – only the most benighted of wingnuts could believe the names you mentioned are journalists. They are polemicists, whose job is regurgitating the prejudices, received ideas and crackpot notions of halfwits in a manner that allows the dopey to believe they’re hearing real debate. Fox news, Limbaugh and the others sell a potent and profitable form of entertainment.

  73. 73
    stickler says:

    DougJ?

    Proved? Really, that’s not what I remember reading, mister “cross reference your facts”. They THEORIZED that PARTS of her brain were liquified.

    No, Mr. Swallows-Hannity-Tripe, they CUT OPEN HER SKULL and MEASURED WHAT WAS LEFT OF HER BRAIN. This happens with surprising frequency during autopsies. No theorizing going on at all.

  74. 74
    mere mortal says:

    “Look, mere mortal, you’re just angry because…”

    No, I’m disappointed that a person who started a post with an accusation that his detractor was a liar IMMEDIATELY moved on to a lying defamation of those with whom he disagrees.

    People lie all the time, its the brazen hypocricy that inches me towards anger.

    – mere mortal

  75. 75
    Andrei says:

    It’s official. Balloon Juice has now jumped the shark.

    Off to find a new source of material I can tolerate from the rightwing side of the fence. Balloon Juice was always a bit on the pushing the envelope side for me, but ahh well… things change.

  76. 76
    tBone says:

    John is dead-on right about the excesses of the left here—too many of them hate America, and many truly have no right to the opinions they express.

    You know, I don’t think the USA is really your kind of country. You’d be much more comfortable in a nation that didn’t have pesky things like free speech and democracy. I can think of a couple right off the top of my head where you’d fit in great.

    Anyone want to take bets on whether DougJ is:

    a) an over-the-top rightwing caricature created by a semi-clever troll;
    b) a pod-grown Republiclone equipped with an upgradeable RNC Talking Points module; or
    c) sincere in his beliefs, and therefore the best argument yet against evolution?

  77. 77
    PotVsKtl says:

    KC, the difference is that O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Malkin, and Cavuto (I won’t put Matthews in this group) have a track record of using their platform responsibly.

    Oh lord…

    O’REILLY: FBI should arrest the “clowns” at Air America Radio for being traitors. “So, all those clowns at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they’re undermining everything and they don’t care.”

    HANNITY: “It doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state.”

    LIMBAUGH: “Folks, I’m tired of this word “neocon.” Let’s get it out on the table. When you hear the word “neocon” used by anybody, it just means Jews, Republican Jews. That’s what neocon means. You’re going to have people argue with me about it, it may be a larger definition to some people, but the people who use that term pejoratively are talking about not Democrat, not liberal Jews, Republican Jews.”

    SAVAGE: “Oh, you’re one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How’s that? Why don’t you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis.”

    Honestly, think before you type something like that.

  78. 78
    James Emerson says:

    No, the whole range is a 95% probability interval. The reason you do a 95% confidence interval is so that you can make a claim that has some statistical certitude

    According to methodology, you begin a statistical survey by first making a determination of sample size that would allow an accurate portrayal of the larger phenomenon being measured. That was done by the Lancet epidemiologists in accordance with accepted practice. Then follows a series of calculations designed to elucidate the most probable number representing the larger phenomenon. That was done by the Lancet epidemiologists in accordance with accepted practice. The number reported as the most probable number of excess deaths caused by the war was 98,000. That is a number that causes discomfort amongst the supporters of this war.

    So I ask you this. The Lancet performed similar studies for the genocides in Bosnia, the Congo, and Rwanda. THese studies were frequently referred to by the US Department of State as being reliable with no questions being offered concerning their accuracy, validity or methodology. Why is that? Are you claiming that the Lancet people intentionally set up a false study in Iraq? For what purpose would they do this that didn’t exist in Bosnia, the Congo, and Rwanda?

    They used the same methodology in all cases!

    No…it is obvious that the numbers reported were at odds with the story that was concocted by the administration and blindly believed by their supporters, and that story was about the war being relatively bloodless and benign. Sorry if the truth hurts so much, but consider this article mirrored from the the Chonicles of higher Education as the last word on the Lancet study.

  79. 79

    […] Let’s just say that, as with this war, they’re better at talkin’ than walkin’. […]

  80. 80
    DougJ says:

    Tbone, I’m (c) sincere in my beliefs and am glad to be part of the argument against evolution but “b) a pod-grown Republiclone equipped with an upgradeable RNC Talking Points module” is truly some funny writing on your part. You libruls should try to use humore more often. There’s only so much somber “the planet is dying” stuff the voters in this country can take.

  81. 81
    tBone says:

    I’m not exactly a “librul” (care to take a guess on who I’ve voted for in presidential elections since 1988?), but I agree, a sense of humor is important – for both sides. There’s only so much “liberals are latte-sipping hedonistic elitists and, oh yeah, filthy traitors too” that this particular voter can take.

  82. 82
    RiverRat says:

    At many times in history liberty has carried a price. Now, and at times in the future it will also carry a price.

    Would it were the price did not include human life and treasure.

    Would it were Collectivist Egalitarianism the answer.

    Would it were appeasement, pacifism, and other excuses for personal cowardice triumph over tyranny.

    Woud it were submission to tyranny bring true peace with liberty.

    Would it were all Americans embraced the words of Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.

    Would it were!

    Would it were American Liberals had a clue!

    RiverRat: RVN Veteran, Silver Star, Bronze Star w/Combat “V”, Navy Commendation Medal w/ Combat “V”, and two Purple Hearts. A pacifist who would fight again for liberty and justice for “all”.

  83. 83
    DougJ says:

    Great post, River Rat. What the libruls need to understand is that the struggle for democracy in Iraq has many similarities to the struggle our Founding Fathers waged 200 years ago.

    As I see it, wherever the cause of freedom is being undertaken and fought for, wherever liberty is held captive by tyranny, there should the United States be, whether in North Korea, Syria, or the Sudan.

  84. 84
    Peter T. says:

    Yes, Iraq is just like the early US – see, they’re writing a Constitution. But one notable difference between Iraq and the early US: when the founders met in Philadelphia for the deliberations that resulted in the Constitution, they did so without needing to be surrounded by an army of foreigners. In the US, delegates met openly and came and went as they pleased. None were assassinated. Nor was a foreign power looking over the shoulder of the delegates ‘suggesting’ that they include this or exclude that, or that they be finished by a certain date. Which is only fair, as without US protection, the Iraqi constitutional convention probably would end real quick.

    Other than that, very much like the early US.

  85. 85
    DougJ says:

    “they did so without needing to be surrounded by an army of foreigners”

    It was before the United States was founded, so in a sense they were all foreigners.

    Modern Baghdad is infinitely safer than Revoluctionary War era Philadelphia. Rush did a thing yesterday about how if the MSM was as bad then as now, no one would have left their house in that era and we never would have had a Constitution at all.

  86. 86
    RiverRat says:

    DougJ

    Great post, River Rat. What the libruls need to understand is that the struggle for democracy in Iraq has many similarities to the struggle our Founding Fathers waged 200 years ago.

    Thanks for the compliment.

    I’ll only add that Democracy is only the best tool we’ve yet found to assure liberty. There may be a better solution the mind of man is yet to discover. A.C Clarke wrote about possibly the first. The search goes on.

  87. 87
    DougJ says:

    “I’ll only add that Democracy is only the best tool we’ve yet found to assure liberty.”

    That reminds me of what President Bush said: “Freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to mankind.”

    It is incumbent upon the United States to spread freedom, whatever the cost. Today, Iraq, tomorrow, Iran, Syria, and North Korea…

    Freedom is on the march.

  88. 88
    Peter T. says:

    Not that your idiotic point is worth responding to, but the Constitutional Convention was in 1787. I’d say that Americans became Americans in 1776 with the Declaration. If that’s not good enough for you, the Revolution ended (we won) in 1783. So, those were US citizens in Philly in 1787.

    As to Rush’s take on Philadelphia in 1787. We know Rush is a distinguished journalist; who would have imagined he’s also a prodigiously talented historian? I say prodigiously talented, because if Rush has uncovered massive sectarian bombings, corpses found by the dozens beheaded and/or shot, mortar attacks, trigger happy soldiers and ‘security consultants’ in the Philly of 1787 he has uncovered a Philadelphia that all other historians have missed.
    Bravo Rush!

  89. 89
    DougJ says:

    ‘security consultants’

    What would you call the Hessian soldiers the British emploeyd ;)

  90. 90
    Ckrisz says:

    “Modern Baghdad is infinitely safer than Revoluctionary War era Philadelphia. Rush did a thing yesterday about how if the MSM was as bad then as now, no one would have left their house in that era and we never would have had a Constitution at all.”

    Did Revolutionary War Philadelphia incur a violent homicide rate of 350+ dead per month? That’s what Baghdad is averaging.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5045166/

    That’s excluding deaths from major suicide bombings, and of course the daily combat between coalition/Iraqi government forces and the insurgents. And of course excluding deaths of people who are murdered but whose bodies are concealed, and given Muslim burial requirements people whose bodies cannot reach the morgue due to the latest car bombing, American or insurgent checkpoint, etc.

    I don’t think those things were present in Revolutionary Philadelphia. If so, I’d like to see a cite of some sort that does not include something you heard on the radio program of a oxycontin-sniffing Republican ideologue who thinks the torture at Abu Ghraib was equivalent to a frat hazing.

  91. 91
    DougJ says:

    “Did Revolutionary War Philadelphia incur a violent homicide rate of 350+ dead per month?”

    I’m not sure about this — it was a smaller city. I think Rush was just talking about the RATE of violent crime in Revolutionary War era Philadelphia.

  92. 92
    RiverRat says:

    Peter T. Says:

    Not that your idiotic point is worth responding to

    This represents the soul of the “tolerant” peaceful American Left! Protestations of peace guised as rhetorical warriors.

    You represent a suicidal death wish Peter T. Your… ah frig it! It’s not worth arguing with the morally backrupt.

  93. 93
    RiverRat says:

    Sorry,

    Bankrupt!

  94. 94
    DougJ says:

    So true, so true River Rat. It is so maddening that the libruls care so little for freedom. They were go gung-ho for Bosnia, where freedom wasn’t at stake, but they simply have no interest in the cause of liberty.

  95. 95
    RiverRat says:

    Angry and frustrated utopians! WTF es la Planeta de Utopia? No esta en la planeta Tierra.

    Spanish? Demasiada tequila para mi esta noche!

    Hasta manana!

  96. 96
    PotVsKtl says:

    So true, so true River Rat. It is so maddening that the libruls care so little for freedom.

    Your inability to speak in anything but tired blanket statements and idiotic generalities is an embarassment. Care to address the quotes from your “responsible” friends Limbaugh and Savage that I pointed out earlier in the comments?

  97. 97
    DougJ says:

    “Care to address the quotes from your “responsible” friends Limbaugh and Savage that I pointed out earlier in the comments?”

    I won’t defend Savage’s comment except to say that he may have been joking.

    I don’t see what your problem with Rush’s quote is: he was calling the libruls out on the anti-semitism inherent in their constant use of the word neocon.

  98. 98
    JWeidner says:

    It is incumbent upon the United States to spread freedom, whatever the cost. Today, Iraq, tomorrow, Iran, Syria, and North Korea…

    I’m sure that’s what the Russians said about Communism as well. YOu say spread freedom, whatever the cost, they said spread communism, whatever the cost. Too similar for my tastes.

  99. 99
    PotVsKtl says:

    I don’t see what your problem with Rush’s quote is: he was calling the libruls out on the anti-semitism inherent in their constant use of the word neocon.

    So you don’t recognize that there is a very real neo-conservative movement? The people Limbaugh named were signatories on or supporters of the PNAC. The fact that they are Jewish was an observation on Limbaugh’s part, not a substantive element in criticism of their ideology.

  100. 100
    DougJ says:

    “So you don’t recognize that there is a very real neo-conservative movement?”

    No, not really. It seems like a vague catch-all that the libruls like to use in a pejorative way.

    Look, you may not like Rush, but he’s done a lot to bring good old-fashioned common sense back into the debate. Not only is he smart and incisive, but he’s very funny. I’ll take an hour of listening to Rush over reading the New York Times or the Washington Post or any of your “mainstream” papers any day. He tells it like it is — not as it seems to be from behind the liberal-colored glasses the MSM wears. If he says it, then I believe it.

  101. 101
    RiverRat says:

    JWeidner,

    So, if I may presume. You’d have freedom take it from the rear and wait peacefully for the Caliphascists to ask you for conversion, a poll tax, or death. Right? Or possibly you believe they’ll be swayed by your genuflections into become members of your Transnational Socialist Utopia with Kofi as your Supreme Leader.

    Might you explain your solution, REMF? Or are you just going to whine.?

  102. 102
    James Emerson says:

    DougJ says:

    He tells it like it is—not as it seems to be from behind the liberal-colored glasses the MSM wears. If he says it, then I believe it.

    This is too easy…

    “There’s nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.” — Rush Limbaugh October 5th, 1995.

    Like shooting fish in a barrel…

  103. 103
    mac Buckets says:

    Thay can just speak with the relatives of the estimated 100,000 Iraqis who died because of Bush’s war( and that was last Summer’s estimate)…

    To be more precise, that was the estimate rushed out the week before the 2004 election (for policy reasons, we are assured, not political reasons! Well, anyway, it didn’t work). That study has been roundly pilloried for small sample size and over-reliance on extrapolation from a small sample of violent war-related deaths (75, IIRC).

    A better study bears out this criticism:

    The United Nations Development Program has released the “Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004.” Same basic methodology as the Lancet study, but the UNDP’s sample was much larger: 21,668 households versus 988 in the Roberts, et al, survey.

    From page 54 of the UNDP report:

    “The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that have raised controversy. The ILCS data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. … Another source (Roberts et al. 2004) estimates the number to be 98,000, with a confidence interval of 8,000 to 194,000. The website ‘Iraq Body Count’…estimates that between 14,619 and 16,804 deaths have occurred between the beginning of 2003 and 7 December 2004 (IBC 2004).”

    Note the much smaller confidence interval in the ILCS study due to the larger sample size.

    OK, now that you know better, you lefties may now ignore the more realistic numbers and return to spewing ridiculous stats about 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. Just don’t pretend you are being intellectually honest.

  104. 104
    RiverRat says:

    James Emerson,

    Ah, another tolerant forgiving Marx loving Snarker. Too bad Rush ain’t an abused minority so you can manage his suffering for him. Cultiva algo cojones y un cerebro mano mio.

  105. 105
    James Emerson says:

    RiverRat — You remind me of that Colonel Flagg character of M.A.S.H. fame. He was nuts too.

    mac Buckets — You didn’t tell me it would be such a long download (I have dial up). Is there an HTML equivalent? Or is this another rightwing plot to keep us lefties off balance?

  106. 106
    James Emerson says:

    As I suspected. After downloading all 168 pages of PDF, it turns out that not one word was mentioned about deaths in Iraq due to our invasion and occupation. Did you mean to link to volume I? because this is Volume II:

    Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004
    Volume II: Analytical Report
    Ministry of Planning and
    Development Cooperation
    U N

    A seemingly important excerpt:

    The questionnaires reflect the nature of the survey. Two questionnaires were used: one general questionnaire for each household, answered by the household head or a member of the household with knowledge of all members was the respondent; and one targeted questionnaire used to interview women of the household aged between 15 and 54 years. The first questionnaire dealt with housing and infrastructure, household economy, basic demography, and the education, health, and labour force characteristics of the household members; the second focused on the women’s reproductive history and children’s health.

    Note that it says nothing about war deaths.

  107. 107
    Reasonable Man says:

    RiverRat and DougJ are representative of the startaling ignorance and naivete of the Right.

    They’re not bad, per se.

    They’re just stupid.

    “So you don’t recognize that there is a very real neo-conservative movement?”

    No, not really. It seems like a vague catch-all that the libruls like to use in a pejorative way.

    Funny then that it’s not a term which was invented by liberals. Funnier still that many people self-identify as neocon. Certainly a liberal may throw the term around as an insult – usually by way of calling someone naive. But, let me explain this in terms you might be able to understand. Righties throw out “liberal” as an insult, which does not imply that the category “liberal” doesn’t exist. Comprehend? I hope I’m not going too fast.

    Modern Baghdad is infinitely safer than Revoluctionary War era Philadelphia.

    What the fuck does this have to do with anything? The Revolutionary war was a few thousand guys defending against the largest army on the planet. We are in Iraq, having been promised years ago that it would have been, basically, a cakewalk. The Iraq War was not supposed to be long and bloody like the Revolutionary War. Anyway, citizens in Philadelphia were not afraid for the lives walking down the streets of Phiadelphia, which is a major difference.

    Would it were the price did not include human life and treasure.

    Would it were Collectivist Egalitarianism the answer.

    Would it were appeasement, pacifism, and other excuses for personal cowardice triumph over tyranny.

    Woud it were submission to tyranny bring true peace with liberty.

    Would it were all Americans embraced the words of Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.

    What the hell?? This is totally out of right field. Who the hell is advocating submission? Who the hell is advocatung Collectivist Egalitarianism? Quit fighting the hobgoblins in your daydreams and stick to the argument at hand. No one can converse with you if you just start talking out of your ass.

    wherever the cause of freedom is being undertaken and fought for, wherever liberty is held captive by tyranny, there should the United States be, whether in North Korea, Syria, or the Sudan.*

    *Offer not valid in Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Georgia, 95% of Afghanistan, Mexico….well, most places, really.

    You think the US can save the planet through the barrel of a gun.

    MY GOD YOU ARE SO STUPID.

    This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. PLENTY, probably MOST, conservatives would think what you’re advocating is the height of imbicility. I’m starting to think you’re no smarter than the President. I hate to insult a guy like that.

    You’ll probably think I hate America for saying that. Shows how stupid you are.

    Read here about the Lancet Study:

    http://crookedtimber.org/2005/.....y-you-know

    “they did so without needing to be surrounded by an army of foreigners”

    It was before the United States was founded, so in a sense they were all foreigners.

    Your stupidity is awe-inspiring. The relevance was that the Founding Fathers were able to found without foreign coercion. Whether or not they were themselves foreigners is complete irrelevant. Do I need to slow down for you?

  108. 108
    mac Buckets says:

    mac Buckets—- You didn’t tell me it would be such a long download (I have dial up). Is there an HTML equivalent? Or is this another rightwing plot to keep us lefties off balance?

    If only we were that clever.

    No, I just gave you the wrong page number (I hate .pdfs, too). It was page 55 (of volume II, so you have the right one), not page 54. Heading: “War-related deaths — between 18,000 and 29,000”

    The report is not just about war deaths, which is why it’s so long. But war deaths are definitely in there.

    And no, I couldn’t find a html version, or believe me, I’d have linked there.

  109. 109
    MisterPundit says:

    Bob Munck :

    The former makes sense, but what would cause the latter? Spontaneous hatred, resulting in hatred of his policies?

    Phew, thank goodness political partisanship is a myth.

  110. 110
    Boronx says:

    Maybe some of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi mothers who are still digging their sons out of mass graves because of Saddam Hussein could meet with Mrs. Sheehan, and she could explain to them why their sons don’t matter.

    There is something horribly wrong with your soul if you think past slaughters of the Iraqi people that we easily could have prevented justify further slaughter of the Iraqi people today.

    It’s nothing short of ghoulish.

  111. 111
    Tim Lambert says:

    The Lancet study and the ILCS were measuring different things. The ILCS just counted deaths directly caused by the fighting while the Lancet also tried to measure those caused by the increase in disease and lawlessness caused by the war. The Lancet also covered a longer time period.

    See here for more details.

  112. 112
    MisterPundit says:

    There is something horribly wrong with your soul if you think past slaughters of the Iraqi people that we easily could have prevented justify further slaughter of the Iraqi people today.

    How would we have “easily prevented past slaughters”? With a UN resolution? Sanctions? How have those worke so far? Perhaps military intervention? Like, say… the one we’re having now?

    Maybe we should just have let Saddam keep on killing his own people, forever, with no hope. As long as we don’t see them on our television screens, we can pretend it’s not happening.

    You’re the ghoul, and a clueless one at that.

  113. 113
  114. 114
    Killer says:

    “How would we have “easily prevented past slaughters”? With a UN resolution? Sanctions? How have those worke so far? Perhaps military intervention? Like, say… the one we’re having now?”

    Perhaps by not offering intelligence on the best ways to use the chemical weapons and helecopters fitted to deliver those weapons. Or perhaps by not so openly supporting Hussein during his war with Iran. Or by offering actual military support to the Kurds & Shia after Gulf war I.

  115. 115

    […] Really. I am serious. Thousands of speeches, hundreds of thousands of news stories, millions of hourse of television news coverage, and all my liberal ‘friends’ don’t know why we are in Iraq. They ask over and over again in the comments: Why are we in Iraq? Most notably, these comments were from people I had never heard from before, but in good faith, here is my answer to the question of the day, Why Are We In Iraq?®,: […]

  116. 116
    James Emerson says:

    A heart thanks to Tim Lambert for wading through…once again…the misinformation and political hackery surrounding the Lancet Study.

    Oh, and Crooked Timber is a pretty cool site too.

  117. 117
    Defense Guy says:

    Cindy Sheehan isn’t special for asking the question, but she’s special because if anyone deserves an answer – a straight, direct, honest answer – its her.

    The truth behind the position. In a society that elevates the idea that those claiming special victim status are due more rights or privaleges from society, this kind of thing will make sense. In a society that claims equality for all and elevation of none, like ours, it should not. She is one amongst almost 300 million people. She is special only because she managed to raise an incredible child, something we must never forget. She is no more due an answer than any last one of us, and she is in no way due an answer that is differant from the one already given.

    I wish we could turn back the clock and drop the suffix whore from all but the obvious, as it’s clearly a hot button word that too eaily diverts attention.

  118. 118
    DougJ says:

    “She is no more due an answer than any last one of us”

    Exactly. I’m sorry her son died, but it doesn’t entitle her to special information nor does it entitle her to hours and hours of free media coverage for her far left agenda.

    What about the parents of the fallen soldier who support the war? Who are frustrated about the MSM black-out on good news from Iraq? They should camp out outside CBS News headquarters and demand Les Moonves tell them why his network does not report the successes in Iraq, why it does not report that reconstruction is AHEAD of schedule, that the insurgency is weakening, and that it is only a matter of time until we prevail in Iraq.

  119. 119
    drublood says:

    Pardon me while I muscle through the testosterone here and bring up a point that hasn’t been raised.

    This isn’t about Cindy Sheehan. Andrew, Atrios, all the folks at dKos couldn’t give a SHIT about Cindy Sheehan. This is about galvanizing support against the war, and not a whit about Cindy Sheehan and her ‘questions.’ And for some of them, this isn’t even about galvanizing support against the war- it is just pure politics.

    I know that us womenfolk don’t count as much as those lefty men you mentioned there, but for me and many other women on the web (and, most likely, many men) Cindy Sheehan is a human being who is in a really painful place and she would sincerely like answers to her questions. Additionally, she would sincerely like Bush to stop using her son’s death to justify a war.

    Her message is plain, and it’s a message I, as a mother of boys, find very comforting. I want to make DAMN SURE that if my boys are ever sent to fight in a war, there is a DAMN GOOD REASON. And that the leaders of the country I live in do not use their HONOR against them and mislead them into fighting a war that is more about feeding a capitalist machine than protecting our country.

    I am raising my sons to be good men. George Bush, or any other leader, does not deserve to use them to acquire or maintain wealth. And if he or whoever is leading our country at the time that they become men choose to fight a war of liberation, they better make damn sure that is clear to the troops BEFORE they send them over, so my sons can make a choice as to whether or not they wish to fight for that cause.

    This is what I believe to be Cindy Sheehan’s message. And, such as it is, it’s pretty fucking unassailable. I thank her for her honor. In fact, I love her for her strength.

  120. 120

    […] This post on Cindy Sheehan, Perfect Weapon, has given me nothing but heaps of shit from you all. Glad the folks at Kos have cleared things up: […]

  121. 121
    Beth says:

    God, now I’m going to have to take ANOTHER shower after willingly reading about this joke again.

    You know what’s hilarious? These anti-war flakes keep trotting out the same crap their predecessors used thirty years ago, like “What did my son die for? If the cause is so noble, why don’t you send your twins?”

    SEND your twins? Last I checked, in this country you can’t force your adult children to join the military, no matter who you are WHEN THE MILITARY IS ALL-VOLUNTEER.
    For all these freaks know, Bush has asked them to and they said no. I mean, REALLY.

    For the record, I carry a blue ID card and would go back in if I could. And based on the fact that Casey Sheehan proudly reenlisted during wartime (knowing he was going back to Iraq) I’d be willing to bet that had he survived, he’d have a blue ID card some day, too. Despite his mother’s pleading for him to reconsider, at that. It sure looks to me like Casey Sheehan believed in the war–NOBODY MADE him re-enlist.

    All these anti-war activists and sycophants seem to forget it was CASEY Sheehan who made the ultimate sacrifice, who laid his life on the line for his country. CASEY volunteered, CASEY re-enlisted, CASEY knew his unit was going to deploy, CASEY knew the risks, CASEY was willing to risk his life for his country. His mother believed the war was wrong, and Casey Sheehan did not.

    Oh, but I forgot…the Kossack talking points say to NOT MENTION Casey, even though his mother uses him to advance her agenda. Pathetic.

  122. 122
    scats says:

    beth-

    According to Cindy, Casey thought the war was wrong, but went in order to be with his brothers-in-arms. He apparently didn’t feel that he could abandon them while they were in danger.

    Now you could say she’s lying. Which is possible, but not likely. I’ve heard many military men describe their choice to return to a war they don’t agree with using this rationale. It is certainly not unusual to fight for this reason. Just because Casey went voluntarily doesn’t mean he didn’t think the war was wrong.

    If the “Cossacks” aren’t mentioning Casey, it is because they cannot speak for him. Just as Malkin cannot speak for him, but presumed to when she said that Casey would not have liked what his mother is doing. No one but Casey can speak for Casey, but if anyone can even come close it is his mother. Certainly not some right-wing pundit. The “Cossacks” don’t presume as much as Ms. Malkin.

    As for the “send your twins” argument, I’ll take some liberty to speak for those of us on the left who make it. No one is seriously suggesting that Bush command his daughters into battle or send them there by fiat or some such. We know the relevant laws. We know he can’t make enlist them himself.

    It is telling however that they haven’t volunteered. Apparently they don’t believe too strongly in their father’s noble war, at least not strongly enough to support the effort in any substantive way. If his own children don’t find him persuasive why should anyone else’s?

    The larger point is simply that they are not there. Bush personally is risking nothing by sending others to die. He will not know what it means to fear for the life of his children, or cope with their deaths. He is insulated from the consequences of his actions. All of the death and destruction are mere abstractions to him. Statistics. He knows nothing of the realities and costs of war. He sacrifices nothing himself. He has lived his entire life this way. Sacrificing nothing. Using his privilege to get him into influential posts and again using his privilege to bail himself out when he’s cocked up the job.

    And you can bet your horses that if those girls were in the military there would be no end of breathless Bush supporters pointing out how noble he and they were for adhering to their principles in the face of such great personal risk. “He really puts his money where his mouth is!” they would say, “With his own girls on the line, he must really believe in this!”. But they can’t, so they are reduced to mincing and hair-splitting, evasion and denial, nit-picking and fine parsing.

    So we have to concentrate real hard on the word “send” when one could have just as easily said, “Why don’t your twins go?” or even “Why didn’t you go when it was your time?”

    But he never goes. He never pays for anything. All the blood, all the treasure, all the desolation, and he can go to black tie dinners and laugh about missing WMD. He laughs at the dead and celebrates on their graves. He is a decadent. There is no end to the irony that a movement dedicated to combatting decadence enshrined a perfect decadent as its leader.

  123. 123
    Pat says:

    “Great post, mac. The libruls claim to take issue with Bush’s policies, but the truth, as you say, is that they hated him the moment he won in 2000…..”

    If the SC had voted 5-4 for Gore, the right wing would have calmy accepted it without a complaint. Is that what you’d have us believe?

    “The obvious hypocrisy and contradictions in their opposition to the Iraq war are simply laughable. For years, the Dems championed nation-building—most notably in Bosnia, which has turned into a disaster—but when Bush decided it was time to bring democracy to the Middle East, they screamed bloddy murder and called him a liar (not true—our rationale for the invasion has not changed one whit since day one….”

    Suffice it say, the above statement does not square with facts, unless it is referring to the secret, unstated rationale for the war. And since the writer can spell rationale, they are probably smart enough to know that they are distorting history….It’s just a rather lame attempt for someone smart enough to know better. Or do they have some kind of agenda? Wait, there’s more!

    “…{Liberals called him} an agressor (not true—we were forced into Iraq by Saddam’s intransigence on WMD)….”

    This so-called intransigence on WMD is mythical. He in fact didn’t have any WMD and inspectors were on the ground looking for them and had to leave early so the war could start. This is so easily verified that the person who wrote this should ask the rest of us for forgivness. War is serious; arguments in favor of war should be serious.

    “….and a political opportunist (not true—Iraq has hardly helped Bush politically). I think their real problem is that Bush took one of their pet projects—nation building—and showed them how do it right. Rather than wasting billions of dollars on a boondoggle like Bosnia, we’re now building a nation in a part of the world with tremendous strategic importance. And unlike Bosnia, which has turned into a hornet’s nest of ethnic strife, Iraq is well on its way to becoming a stable democarcy….”

    This paragraph is my favorite. It almost makes fun of itself
    but… Thank you for reminding us that Bush came into office
    having utterly rejected “Nation Building” and thank you admitting that is what we are doing in Iraq. What you meant to say was that “Bush was against nation building before he was for it.” Or you may have chosen: “Now, the flip flop is on the other foot.”

    Seriously though, you have a good point. No doubt our troops in Iraq thank God and George Bush every minute of every day that they get to serve light duty in Iraq and not in some hornet’s nest like Bosnia.

    Hey, though, don’t you think it’s a bit wierd to advocate sending our troops somewhere else in the name of “defending our freedom” and also post things like:

    “How can it be that spewing this kind of anti-American filth is allowed while we are at war? I am sure that the FEC or the Attorney General’s office could shut them down. Why haven’t they? This is underming the war agasint terror—words have effects. Free speech must be used responsibly.
    …Something must be done about this.”

    Sir, you do not decide what the rest of us are entitled to say. Free speech is our birth right, and it wasn’t won by invading somewhere else, nor is it preserved or strengthened in any way by invading places like Grenada, Panama, or Iraq.

    Sir, the Attorney General cannot and will not “shut us down”…and nothing will done about “it”. You support something that is harmful to the well being of our nation, you support a failed policy and you will hear from the rest of us about it and you will keep hearing about it.

    Oh, and by the way, we lost the war on al Qaeda when we invaded Iraq. People like you lost the war. Don’t blame us. We wanted to stick with going after Osama…you people were the ones who caused this whole deadly mess of distration.

    —an eyewitness to 9/11

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] This post on Cindy Sheehan, Perfect Weapon, has given me nothing but heaps of shit from you all. Glad the folks at Kos have cleared things up: […]

  2. […] Really. I am serious. Thousands of speeches, hundreds of thousands of news stories, millions of hourse of television news coverage, and all my liberal ‘friends’ don’t know why we are in Iraq. They ask over and over again in the comments: Why are we in Iraq? Most notably, these comments were from people I had never heard from before, but in good faith, here is my answer to the question of the day, Why Are We In Iraq?®,: […]

  3. […] Let’s just say that, as with this war, they’re better at talkin’ than walkin’. […]

  4. […] … Cole responds, pointing out that Sheehan was not called a “whore” literally, but actually a “media whore”, which is a metaphorical kind of whore that doesn’t necessarily fuck people for money (Jeff Gannon nonwithstanding.) No, I won’t get out of here – that’s what he said. Go see for yourself. So if anybody thought that Erick was literally saying that Sheehan fucks people for money, please disabuse yourself of that notion forthwith! He merely meant that she behaves analogously to a whore in her dealings with the media. Please adjust your views accordingly, and remember to always beware of metaphors. […]

Comments are closed.