Why Are We in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, and Other Things

Among the many other things I have learned from my so-called friends this week, along with the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to truncate, distort, and misrepresent whatever someone has said, as long as you are on the side of the Righteous®, is that there are people who don’t know why we are in Iraq.

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?®:

Why Are We In Iraq?

Monied coroporate interests, tired of the years of freedom, justice, and blowjobs of the Clinton Presidency, gathered together with the PNAC neo-con zionist cabal, stole the election in 2000 in order to install their candidate. They were engaged in only minor perfidy at first, looting the treasury, trying to end social security, women’s rights, and so on, until they hit the mother lode on 9/11, an attack they ignored and probably, in all truthfulness, knew about ahead of time and did nothing.

After 9/11, rather than heading to Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban and attacking Al Qaeda, they immediately launched an offensive to attack Saddam Hussein, a man they had armed to the teeth over previous decades. The point of this attack was to secure oil fields, enrich Halliburton with public treasure, and to fight a war for Israel.

There you go. That is Why Are We In Iraq?®. I don’t believe it for a minute. But many of you do. And so does Cindy Sheehan:

It has been two days since your dishonest campaign stole another election…but you all were way more subtle this time than in 2000, weren’t you? You hardly had to get the Supreme Court of the United States involved at all this week.

You feel so proud of yourself for betraying the country again, don’t you? You think you are very clever because you pulled the wool over the eyes of some of the people again.

You think that you have some mandate from God…that you can “spend your political capital” any way that you want. George you don’t care or even realize that 56,000,000 plus citizens of this country voted against you and your agenda. Still, you are going to continue your ruthless work of being a divider and not a uniter.

George, in 2000 when you stole that election and the Democrats gave up, I gave up too. I had the most ironic thought of my life then: “Oh well, how much damage can he do in four years?” Well, now I know how much you have damaged my family, this country, and this world. If you think I am going to allow you another four years to do even more damage, then you truly are mistaken. I will fight for a true vote count and if that fails, your impeachment. Also, the impeachment of your Vice President. The only thing is, I’m not politically savvy, and I don’t have a Karl Rove to plan my strategy, but I do have a big mouth and a righteous cause, which still mean something in this country, I hope…

The 56,000,000 plus citizens who voted against you and your agenda have given me a mandate to move forward with my agenda. Also, thanks to you and your careless domestic policies, I am unemployed, so this will be my full-time job. Being your political downfall will be the most noble accomplishment of my life and it will bring justice for my son and 1125 (so far) other brave Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis your lies have killed.

By the way, George, how many more innocent Iraqis are your policies going to kill before you convince them that you are better than Saddam? How many more of their cities are you going to level before you consider that they are liberated? If you really had any moral values, or if you were an honorable man at all you would resign.

And that isn’t the only time she has voiced her beliefs:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy…not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn’t changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq…in fact it has gotten worse.

And if I have learned anything this weekend, it is that despite the fact that I disagree with Cindy Sheehan, because she lost her son, none of us are allowed to discuss her political opinions. They are, in the new political climate, simply known facts. And by noting that while she is a grieving mother, she has also become a poitical lightning rod, an activist, and the galvanizing symbol for anti-war groups, I have just “ripped off the nicey-nice mask he’s been wearing and lets the tentacles all hang out in a beautiful, unhinged rank against Cindy Sheehan.”

I have also learned that I am responsible for everything the ‘right wing smear machine’ does, that I am merely ‘reciting talking points,’ and that noting it is wrong for people writing and calling the wife and employers of someone who has used the phrase ‘media whore’ is actually defending the smear. I have also learned that an ‘intellectually honest conservative’ is someone who agrees with everything progressives say, and I have learned that the question ‘Why did you kill my son’ is a legitimate question that Bush should address.

But most of all, I have learned the power of political theatre, and the power of the left-wing echo chamber. I should have known better- Kos warned us all last year:

Man, the perils of the Internet blogging age. I blog a story seven hours late and feel horribly out of date… Good thing you diarists are on top of things. Still, I feel compelled to chime in on this brilliant political theater:

The story led most of the nightly newscasts, and don’t look now, but it’s the top story over at FoxNews.com.
So Bush ignores Cleland, and looks like a boorish classless ass by snubbing a war hero triple amputee. If Bush comes out and accepts the letter, he looks weak and outclassed.

The best course of action would’ve been to send a rep to invite Cleland, and only Cleland (no entourage or media) for a private meeting in the ranch. If Cleland declines, it is he who appears without class. If he accepts, Bush appears gracious, even with the opposition. Thankfully, Bush blew it.

Your guess is as good as mine as to who will be camped out in Crawford in 2006.

Does Cindy Sheehan deserve to be heard? Sure- she gave her son. But the pretense that she doesn’t have answers to her questions is absurd. Her questions, again:

“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?”

Why did George Bush kill your son? He didn’t. Insurgents did. Or, as Michael Moore calls them, Iraqi “Minute Men”.

What did your son die for? For the country. You may disagree with the current mission in Iraq, you may find it valueless, but we are in it together, and Casey Sheehan, a volunteer who re-enlisted in the summer of 2003, believed in that mission. I wish he were still alive. I wish all of them were.

“Why don’t you send your twins?” Because it is a volunteer Army, and no one has been drafted and sent against their will (although, if you ask me, the stop-loss actions do smack of a back door draft, even if they have always been policy to ensure unit cohesion and peak fighting strength). If Casey Sheehan hadn’t been the patriot he was, he would still be alive.

So, in short, Cindy Sheehan has the answers she wants. She just doesn’t like them, and that is her right. While I understand her acting out in her grief, I refuse to excuse those using her as the galvanizing symbol for anti-war sentiment. If that makes me evil, so be it.

And one more thing, all of this public theatre, this public Chief Brody Slap and these silly cries for “Why Are We in Iraq” are serving no one any good. The important question is what is going on in Iraq and how we can end the insurgency, and if you read the news, it doesn’t look very reassuring:

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”

Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. “Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we’re helping Iraqis succeed,” President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Throw in the alleged chemical weapons factory find, the high death toll this month, the splits within the Iraqi populace about the direction of the country, and there are some real questions that need to be answered.

So, while Bush should have just met with Sheehan again and let her vent before this became a big story in the lazy days of August, excuse me for not reserving front row seats for this spectacle. And would the good folks at the RNC and PNAC send me the new talking points, because I am sure this post is going to get me accused of ‘smearing’ Cindy Sheehan. After all, I am responsible for everything Michelle Malkin, Mike Gallagher, and Bill O’Reilly say.

Joe Gandelman has more. As does Jeff Goldstein. And this progressive has no idea what he is stepping in.






220 replies
  1. 1
    Steve says:

    John, you need to decide whether Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist, or if she is simply the tool of anti-war activists who don’t share her agenda, because I don’t think you can have both positions.

  2. 2
    ch2 says:

    Snark is your answer ?

    You ommitted the one critical question, the one that you yourself danced around, and around.

    What is this noble cause ?

    Mock, build strawmen, whatever. I will not read this drivel any longer. Have fun continue to send blood and treasure in foreing lands on mission even you can’t define, with goals no one refuses to measure, lacking standards and accountability.

    I’m taking the word conservative back, you thief.

  3. 3
    DougJ says:

    We are in Iraq to spread freedom. We will go wherever is necessary to spread freedom. I’m sure that if the Iraqis were some oppressed minority, of if they were gay, the libruls would whole-heartedly support the cause of their freedom. As it is, they have taken a noble cause and derided it as “blood for oil.”

    It’s become time for the RINOs to fish or cut bait, to cast their lot in with Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, the MSM, and the loony left or with Rush Limbaugh, Fox, and other PROUD Americans. I’m glad, John, that you have chosen the latter.

  4. 4
    John Cole says:

    John, you need to decide whether Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist, or if she is simply the tool of anti-war activists who don’t share her agenda, because I don’t think you can have both positions.

    And when I am done, I will decide whether orange is a fruit or a color.

    CH2:

    Mock, build strawmen, whatever. I will not read this drivel any longer. Have fun continue to send blood and treasure in foreing lands on mission even you can’t define, with goals no one refuses to measure, lacking standards and accountability.

    I’m taking the word conservative back, you thief.

    You know, if I had ever heard of you before yesterday, this might sting.

    The mission has been defined repeatedly- what you don;t like are the justifications. And nothing I can say is going to change your mind, so why don’t we both quit pretending that you care what I think?

  5. 5
    Jim Treacher says:

    1) Looks like you missed a closing bold tag.
    2) Thank you.

  6. 6
  7. 7
    DougJ says:

    “you need to decide whether Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist, or if she is simply the tool of anti-war activists who don’t share her agenda, because I don’t think you can have both positions.”

    What’s the difference? Why does it matter? Whatever the supposed rationale, it all amounts to pointless Bush-bashing. The loony left has had it in for Bush from day one. If he said the sky was blue, they would say it was red. It’s not about looking at an issue objectively for these people, it’s about opposing Bush.

    The thing that I think will come of this, the good thing, is pusing more of the RINOs back into the fold. Let’s hope this start with John Cole who, for my money, is the most throughtful of the “moderate Republican” commnetators. It could be the start of a trend: RINOs coming home to the Republican fold.

  8. 8
    James Emerson says:

    What did your son die for? For the country. You may disagree with the current mission in Iraq, you may find it valueless, but we are in it together, and Casey Sheehan, a volunteer who re-enlisted in the summer of 2003, believed in that mission. I wish he were still alive. I wish all of them were

    While I believe you’re sincere when you wish CAsey Sheehan were still alive, the fact remains that he didn’t die for his country. He died for an experiment in global domination. He died for Republican gains at the ballot box. And he died for corporate profit.

    Casey didn’t die because the country was in danger. He didn’t die defending democracy, liberty, or freedom. He didn’t die because of a failed attempt at serious diplomacy.

    In all reality John, Casey Sheehan died for George Bush, and I think his mother would like George Bush to admit that.

  9. 9
    Steve says:

    So she’s a shrill anti-war crusader, and yet the other shrill anti-war crusaders such as Atrios are scum for using her. It makes no sense.

    Anyway, this all started with the strawman that “the Left thinks Cindy Sheehan’s political opinions are off limits.” Show me one person on the Left – just one! – who has said you cannot disagree with her political opinions. Yeah, when people start attacking her motives, accusing her of dishonoring her son, claiming that she just wants media attention, not everyone will agree that those are cool things to say – but they should not be mistaken for disagreements with her political opinions.

    You want to disagree with Cindy Sheehan’s political opinions, explain why the war is just. It ought to be possible to do this without saying boo about Cindy Sheehan as a person, shouldn’t it?

  10. 10
    Mike says:

    “Steve Says:
    So she’s a shrill anti-war crusader, and yet the other shrill anti-war crusaders such as Atrios are scum for using her. It makes no sense.

    Anyway, this all started with the strawman that “the Left thinks Cindy Sheehan’s political opinions are off limits.” Show me one person on the Left – just one! – who has said you cannot disagree with her political opinions. Yeah, when people start attacking her motives, accusing her of dishonoring her son, claiming that she just wants media attention, not everyone will agree that those are cool things to say – but they should not be mistaken for disagreements with her political opinions.

    You want to disagree with Cindy Sheehan’s political opinions, explain why the war is just. It ought to be possible to do this without saying boo about Cindy Sheehan as a person, shouldn’t it?”

    And in other news…
    Cindy is calling for Israel to leave Palestine, calling for Bush’s impeachment and saying she won’t pay her taxes.
    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm
    God I love this. You guys sure know how to pick ’em. This just gets better and better. Moonbats away!

  11. 11
    Otto Man says:

    Whatever the supposed rationale, it all amounts to pointless Bush-bashing.

    I know many of those on the right see all criticism of the war as a personal attack against President Bush, but just because he’s the center of your universe doesn’t mean he’s the center of everyone else’s, too.

    You know what I hate? I hate the fact that this country went to war for no good reason. I hate the fact that the administration took their eye off the ball, let Bin Laden roam free and the Taliban linger on, all to settle old scores with Saddam. I hate the fact that political hacks overrode the advice of seasoned professionals — Shinseki, Lindsey, Clarke, etc. — and assumed they knew best. I hate the fact that they sent our troops over there without the proper equipment and then gutted VA funding here at home. I hate the fact that our troops were sent there without a proper postwar plan and without sufficient international backing to make that phase more bearable. And I hate the fact that this entire misadventure has only made it more likely that we’ll see more terrorism in my hometown of New York and other parts of America.

    And because I hate all those things, I naturally find fault with the incompetent hacks who brought all that about. And, yes, President Bush is firmly a part of that group.

    And yet, for many on the right, all of these complaints boil down to “irrational Bush hatred.” Listen, I don’t hate Bush, I just hate what’s he’s done to my country. And given all the mistakes he’s made, I don’t think that attitude is “irrational” at all.

    In fact, I think the blind loyalty that people on the right have shown to Bush — despite his massive and ongoing series of mistakes and blunders — I think that’s what’s irrational here.

  12. 12
    Defense Guy says:

    John, you need to decide whether Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist, or if she is simply the tool of anti-war activists who don’t share her agenda, because I don’t think you can have both positions.

    An honest man, lacking all of the facts and/or the ability to see her thinking process, just might not know for sure.

  13. 13
    DougJ says:

    “He died for an experiment in global domination.”

    No, he died for Iraqi freedom. Why do you libruls hate freedom?

  14. 14
    Steve says:

    An honest man, lacking all of the facts and/or the ability to see her thinking process, just might not know for sure.

    Then I’d assume that honest man would choose to take neither position, rather than both simultaneously, as John has.

  15. 15
    Defense Guy says:

    While I believe you’re sincere when you wish CAsey Sheehan were still alive, the fact remains that he didn’t die for his country. He died for an experiment in global domination. He died for Republican gains at the ballot box. And he died for corporate profit.

    Casey didn’t die because the country was in danger. He didn’t die defending democracy, liberty, or freedom. He didn’t die because of a failed attempt at serious diplomacy.

    If I were FDR, or Lincoln. I would have you locked up for crap like this. This man died for the same reason as any American soldier in any other war we have ever fought. It is your words which denegrate the sacrifice, not the cause. It is a shame, an absolute travesty, but it always is, every last time.

  16. 16
    djc says:

    John,

    Your post goes bold after the first block quote.
    You need the closing tag around there.

  17. 17
    John Cole says:

    Wow. That is cute. Defense Guy sets up bizarre criteria for what honesty is, and Steve follows in with an applicatiuon to claim I am dishonest. Apparently, the only way to determine what someobe is is to see ‘their thinking process.’

    Is that man in ablue uniform in a police cruiser? I don’t know! I can’t see his ‘thinking process.’ Maybe a better way to determine what she is and isn;t is buy her actions?

    I contend she is both. She is an anti-war activist, has stated so unequivocably, and is making demands that the troops be withdrawn. She is totally within her rights to do so, I might add.

    She is also being used by anti-war groups to galvanize anti-war support. How you can even deny this is beyond me.

    I am not going to debate you guys on this anymore if you continue to be so damned dishonest.

  18. 18
    KC says:

    I think John has some good points. Cindy Sheehan has made herself a public spectacle, which is her right, and pushed her viewpoint into the media, which is also her right. In the end, these may all be positive developments. However, that doesn’t mean everyone has to approve of her actions or that they have to agree with her opinions. I guess I just don’t see why everyone’s made this such a big deal.

  19. 19
    Jim Treacher says:

    Looks like it’s only in Firefox. It’s okay in IE.

  20. 20
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    John:

    No one thinks you can’t question her policy wishes. No one thinks you can’t question her motives. They just think a particular effort at decorum is probably appropriate for someone who lost a son. (FWIW: I don’t remember you going after her; I think most of the irritation is that you’re defending people who’ve shown no sense of decorum.)

    That said, this

    For the country. You may disagree with the current mission in Iraq, you may find it valueless, but we are in it together, and Casey Sheehan, a volunteer who re-enlisted in the summer of 2003, believed in that mission.

    is complete crap. It’s not an answer at all. Is there anything the government could order you to do to which that isn’t the answer. If the President ordered one out of every hundred soldiers in Iraq to set themselves on fire, why couldn’t he simply say, “They’re doing it for country.” Wouldn’t it meet the formal requirements you seem to be imposing here: that the President pushed for it?

    It’s a crap answer.

  21. 21
    Otto Man says:

    Yeah, it’s all bold here too. Firefox.

  22. 22
    Jim Caputo says:

    Bush should have just met with Sheehan again and let her vent before this became a big story in the lazy days of August

    You’re right on that point. But Bush explained why he won’t meet with Mrs. Sheehan very well yesterday. Here’s what he said…

    “…whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there’s somebody who has got something to say to the president, that’s part of the job,and I think it’s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say…but,I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life…I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy,and part of my being is to be outside exercising”

    There you have it folks! The reason why Bush won’t talk with Mrs. Sheehan, who gave her son’s life for W’s war, is because it would interfere with his exercise routine.

    Now I had thought he was avoiding her because he was afraid of how bad he’d look on camera as he tried to stumble his way through the very tough questions that she’s insist he answer, but I really can’t argue with the reason he has given. I mean exercise IS very, very important.

  23. 23
    Nate says:

    This man died for the same reason as any American soldier in any other war we have ever fought. It is your words which denegrate the sacrifice, not the cause. It is a shame, an absolute travesty, but it always is, every last time.

    No, “Defense Guy”, it is *your* words, *your* actions, the words and actions by the Republican party and this administration that denegrate the sacrifice. *You* are the shame, *you* are the “American” travesty. Don’t try your Fox News, Goebbeles-esq, uber-nationalistic “patriotism” on us any more, brownshirt. The tide is *finally* turning back towards sanity and real American values and that you just cannot stand.

    P.S. Why aren’t you, DougJ and John Cole over there if you think this is so marvelous a plan? Or is heaping abuse on grief-stricken mothers more your sort of thing?

  24. 24
    mac Buckets says:

    If the President ordered one out of every hundred soldiers in Iraq to set themselves on fire, why couldn’t he simply say, “They’re doing it for country.” Wouldn’t it meet the formal requirements you seem to be imposing here: that the President pushed for it?

    Talk about crap answers. John’s point (and he may answer much better for himself) was that one can infer that he believed in the Iraq mission, because he re-upped after the mission had started. He had his out, and did not take it.

    Your bizarre “fire” analogy might be apt, if Bush ordered Casey to himself on fire, then Casey re-upped, and Bush asked him to do it again.

  25. 25
    mac Buckets says:

    Obviously, John has become the target of a “slime John Cole” campaign. A lot of posters we’ve never seen before dishing out the irrational, talking-point hate-speak. Smells like marching orders to me!

    You’ve hit the A-list, John!

  26. 26
    John Cole says:

    Why aren’t you, DougJ and John Cole over there if you think this is so marvelous a plan? Or is heaping abuse on grief-stricken mothers more your sort of thing?

    A.) I am a veteran, and I don’t have to justify shit to you, you pissant.

    B.) I have in no way heaped abuse on Cindy Sheehan. I quoted her. That is what she wants, right? That is why she penned AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE BUSH.

    Go away.

  27. 27
    grainger says:

    After all, I am responsible for everything Michelle Malkin, Mike Gallagher, and Bill O’Reilly say.

    This, after you hold Atrios responsible for the comments on his site?

  28. 28
    James Richardson says:

    I’m very happy with this post, John. This thing is getting out of hand, and there are no winners. It was about time for someone to try to bring some moderation to it and then graceful bow out and watch the insanity continue, and hopefully eventually die down. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong, and in the end things will be exactly the same as before she started on this journey.

    btw dougj, stop drinking the kool-aid. We didn’t go there to spread freedom. The bushies adopted that as their reason after all their initial (lies) reasons for going to Iraq were proven to be (lies) false.

  29. 29
    John Cole says:

    SomeCallMeTim:

    It’s not an answer at all. Is there anything the government could order you to do to which that isn’t the answer.

    What part of this did you miss:

    You may disagree with the current mission in Iraq, you may find it valueless, but we are in it together

    When you join the military, you do as you are told. Any way you slice it or dice it, he died for the country. What you disagree with are the justifications for the mission he died in support of, but the simple truth is he died for the country.

    And the shooting yourself nonsense makes no sense whatsoever.

  30. 30
    Defense Guy says:

    Wow. That is cute. Defense Guy sets up bizarre criteria for what honesty is, and Steve follows in with an applicatiuon to claim I am dishonest. Apparently, the only way to determine what someobe is is to see ‘their thinking process.’

    OK fine. There are never mitigating circumstances and she can in no way be a pawn whose grief is blinding her to what is obvious to others. My bad.

    I wouldn’t let someone else define what position I must take from only 2 choices. Why do you hate freedom John?

  31. 31
    DougJ says:

    “Obviously, John has become the target of a “slime John Cole” campaign.”

    That’s the librul way: if someone doesn’t agree with you, slime them. Slime Tom DeLay with bogus charges about corruption, slime Rush Limbaugh with bogus drug charges, slime Karl Rove for providing info that could be found in Who’s Who, slime everyone on Fox for one fake reason or another. And now slime John Cole.

    Welcome to the big time, John!

  32. 32
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    Mac:

    It’s not at issue whether her son believed the justification he was given or not. At issue is whether the justification makes any sense at all, or whether it’s a farce. Given that the war is playing out roughly the way that noted leftist Brent Snowcroft (and the rest of the anti-Iraq war group) thought it would, it looks like a farce. So the question is, “Why didn’t Bush know this was moronic?” “And if he did, what was the real reason for the war?”

    I happen to think Bush is just a moron; she thinks better of his capabilities.

  33. 33
    DougJ says:

    “Brent Scowcroft”

    Speaking of RINOs…

    Mr. Snowcroft, as you inadvertently but humorously called him, is just mad he didn’t get a position in the State Department. He’s had it in for Rummy and Wolfowitz from the minute they got in.

  34. 34
    MisterPundit says:

    This site attracts more leftwing moonbats than DailyKos.

    Great post, John Cole, as usual.

  35. 35
    demimondian says:

    I am a veteran, and I don’t have to justify shit to you, you pissant.

    What he said.

    Why isn’t Cole there? The fact that he served in Gulf War I might give you a clue.

    Moron.

    Hey, Cole, where can I find a set of tentacles to wear under my mask? I don’t want to be indoctrinated into the great McHalliBuShrubPodTalkingPointsEchoChamber, but, you know, a set of tentacles sounds right cool, at least if I can get them without the indoctrination.

  36. 36

    High Noon For George Bush And Cindy Sheehan

    It’s High Noon for George Bush and Cindy Sheehan.

    Sauntering down one side of the stree…

  37. 37
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    John:

    As I said to Mac, I don’t think she’s asking whether or not her son volutarily re-joined the military. I think she’s asking whether or not the war he re-joined made any sense.

    I assume (and maybe I’m wrong here) that if you join the military, you have (or develop) an understanding that you may be sent to risk you life for reasons you do not know or may not understand, and that you believe (or come to believe) that the Executive will act in good faith and with good sense in risking your life. I suspect there is an institutional bias to trust the government on matters like this; it’s part of your job.

    So the question I was trying to get at with the “setting yourself on fire” bit was, “Is it hypothetically possible for the government to (intentionally or not) misuse or abuse that trust?” Can the government act badly toward the military by deploying them for war? And did they do it here?

    I’m aware of your answer (“you may disagree…”), but I don’t she (or many others, inc. me) find it compelling. We’re all asking, “Given what we know now, does it seem like going to war made sense?” We think (and thought) not; increasingly, it appears that the rest of the country agrees with us. If the rest of the country is changing its mind, why can’t we ask the President if he still thinks he’s right? And if so, why?

  38. 38
    carpeicthus says:

    A valiant salvo in The War on Straw.

  39. 39
    Jim Caputo says:

    Obviously, John has become the target of a “slime John Cole” campaign. A lot of posters we’ve never seen before dishing out the irrational, talking-point hate-speak. Smells like marching orders to me!

    You’ve hit the A-list, John!

    I’m new, but I just happened to stumble onto the site after it was linked to a site I regularly read. I decided to enter the dialogue because the threads seem to have a relatively low amount of “flame” posts…and because I know I’m correct on the issues, I don’t need to get into the name calling stuff.

  40. 40
    goonie bird says:

    Why were we in europe in WW II to free a nation from a tyrant and the same with iraq i hope the antiwar pansies remember this

  41. 41
    Darrell says:

    Don’t try your Fox News, Goebbeles-esq, uber-nationalistic “patriotism” on us any more, brownshirt.

    Ah yes, the ever so thoughtful intelligent left. Jeezus John, I leave you guys for a couple of weeks and find the leftist kooks have demoted you from RINO-posterboy-for-the-left to just another rightwing little eichmann. Welcome to the club. *goosesteps in circles around the room wearing Nazi uniform*

  42. 42
    James Richardson says:

    doughj,

    you live in a fantasy world. conservatives slime; it’s what they do, it’s their infastructure, it’s foxnews. all those people you mentioned are being investigated for criminal charges. you are a gop talking points hack who desperately clings to a false reality as the facts of the world around you crumbles to dust. keep repeating your mantra all you want, it doesn’t make it true. the law has no political parties, as delay, rove and the rest are finding out.

  43. 43
    bains says:

    Sigh…

    The fact remains that Ms. Sheehan’s son was killed in Iraq.

    The fact remains that Ms. Sheehan’s son chose to continue his commitment to the military in a time of active combat.

    The fact remains that Ms. Sheehan has met with the President.

    The fact remains that what we are seeing now, is a fight to frame the Cindy Sheehan story.

    The fact remains that from the left is the greiving mother seeking only to get an answer to honest and simple question.

    The fact remains that from the right is a greiving mother who wont accept any answer other than a preconcieved and necessarily humiliating admission of guilt for a bevy of issues.

    The fact remains that there are those on the right who have been far out of line in their objection to the Sheehan ‘story.’

    The fact remains that there are those on the left who have categorized any and all critical commentary of the Sheehan ‘story’ as an outright and vile attack on Ms. Sheehan personally.

    The fact remains that the left is further out of touch with reality than the right on this ‘story.’

    The fact remains that regardless of how one prefaces their opinion, it is still merely opinion.

    The fact remains that I dont believe “[Casey died] for his country.”

    The fact remains that in my opinion “[Casey] died for an experiment in global domination.

    The fact remains that (I think) “[Casey] died for Republican gains at the ballot box.

    The fact remains that in my mind,”he died for corporate profit.”

    The fact remains that[…] John Elway is the greatest quarterback ever.

  44. 44
    MisterPundit says:

    I have in no way heaped abuse on Cindy Sheehan. I quoted her. That is what she wants, right?

    Yeah, but only the stuff that has been cleared by her handlers, John. Not the “whacky” stuff. And remember, it’s Mother Sheehan now.

  45. 45
    Eural says:

    Has anyone noticed that many times the right-wing gets all bent out of shape over the personal “slime” attacks by the left and the left repeats the same accusations against the right? Its as if there are two competing voices each screaming louder and louder about how the other side is sceaming louder and louder. All you get in the end is a lot of loud screaming. Is there actually a way for a real discussion to take place in our society or are both sides really not that interested in finding solutions?

  46. 46
    Paul Berra says:

    DougJ, even for a conservative Republican, you are remarkably stupid. You probably get told that all the time, but I just wanted you to know. You’re welcome.

  47. 47

    […] No, what irks me is something far more petty than all those things–she calls the president George (HT: John Cole, who has an excellent post today about the Sheehan matter). Just George. Not George Bush, or President Bush, or Dubya, or even Curious George. Just plain George. […]

  48. 48
    MisterPundit says:

    Don’t try your Fox News, Goebbeles-esq, uber-nationalistic “patriotism” on us any more, brownshirt.

    We have finally entered the Twilight Zone. Hello Martian.

  49. 49
    James Richardson says:

    well smeg, of all this absurdness, that’s certainly the thing to get irked over.

  50. 50
    Nash says:

    And if I have learned anything this weekend, it is that despite the fact that I disagree with Cindy Sheehan, because she lost her son, none of us are allowed to discuss her political opinions. They are, in the new political climate, simply known facts.

    What is actually, truly and probably sinfully enjoyable about this is that while you are exactly and precisely correct in this, many people enjoy seeing you (the wider you, not necessarily the John Cole you) get such a delicious comeuppance of the Minifer style. It’s the beauty of seeing the nastiness and unfairness of the political subject-verb-object of the past few years turned on its head. It isn’t right that people are being attacked for disagreeing with Cindy Sheehan and for discussing her opinions and possible motivations and even for using heated rhetoric. It wasn’t right when your side (and I mean the wider your side, not necessarily the John Cole your side) attacked us for disagreeing with President Bush and for discussing his opinions and possible motivations and even for using heated rhetoric. You may or may not be honest enough to admit that without even trying to provide an excuse. Almost no one else on your side, however, is even close to capable of admitting that you are just getting shat on unfairly in the exact same way you shat on others before.

    You are an object lesson and you are being made an example of, totally unfairly. All the more appropriate that it’s unfair, karma-wise. I say keep complaining, if you wish, but at least understand how much enjoyment those of us who stung under the cheap way you framed the debate felt before–before the boot was on the other kicking foot. Your identification with the other side may have tapered somewhat, but I don’t think you should be shocked that some people have long memories and grudges to nurse. Complain away all you want, but don’t even pretend to be surprised.

  51. 51
    Bob says:

    Hey John,

    Thanks for commenting! As for Ms. Sheehan’s letter (here’s where I’m just going to plagiarize the update to my own post), she might have a rationale, but that doesn’t mean I like it. She’s clearly calling him George in an attempt to degrade the man, and it pisses me off. George (err, I mean George Bush) wrote her a letter expressing condolences over a son lost in war–not as a tool to oppose his politics in a fashion that degrades the office of the president.

  52. 52
    Pb says:

    noting it is wrong for people writing and calling the wife and employers of someone who has used the phrase ‘media whore’ is actually defending the smear. I have also learned that an ‘intellectually honest conservative’ is someone who agrees with everything progressives say

    If you claim that’s all you were doing, then you simply aren’t an intellectually honest anything.

    SomeCallMeTim had it entirely right when he said this:

    No one thinks you can’t question her policy wishes. No one thinks you can’t question her motives. They just think a particular effort at decorum is probably appropriate for someone who lost a son. (FWIW: I don’t remember you going after her; I think most of the irritation is that you’re defending people who’ve shown no sense of decorum.)

    I second it, and I have said similar things; I’m sure others have too. I have yet to see you respond to any of them. So feel free to continue to avoid your other role in this fiasco. I know it takes a real man to admit his own mistakes, or the mistakes of others that he’s defending.

    Also, your “Why Are We In Iraq?” snippet is cute. It blurs cause and effect, assumes a few things, and purposely gets a few points wrong, but I think the general sentiment is correct. Of course if we wanted to know the truth, (and more likely than not we won’t know enough of it for a few good decades) we’d probably need either a few confessions, or all sorts of documents from inside or close to the administration, or both.

    Of course there have been some admissions from people who were inside the administration and a (paltry) few documents that have come to light, and none of them have been good for the administration. Predictably, this administration has vigorously smeared people involved in each and every one of these cases, where possible. So really, when Cindy Sheehan went to Crawford, why should we have expected anything better from them. And why should any of us be surprised when you carry water for them and their supporters. When push comes to shove, it seems that loyalty is more important than intellectual honesty in today’s Republican party. And in this, you have shown yourself to be a Republican first, and a Conservative second, because there should be nothing ideologically Conservative about supporting smear campaigns or their participants.

  53. 53
    John Cole says:

    PB:

    If you claim that’s all you were doing, then you simply aren’t an intellectually honest anything.

    Yeah, you can read. It wasn’t the only thing I talked about by a long shot, but it most certainly was one of the many things I learned this weekend.

    Also, your “Why Are We In Iraq?” snippet is cute. It blurs cause and effect, assumes a few things, and purposely gets a few points wrong, but I think the general sentiment is correct.

    Then there is no point bothering with you on this issue.

  54. 54
    DougJ says:

    “Why were we in europe in WW II to free a nation from a tyrant and the same with iraq i hope the antiwar pansies remember this”

    There are so many similarities between that conflict and this one. The stakes are very much the same and our reasons for getting involved are very much the same. The only two differences I can think of are:

    (1) Saddam is probably worse than Hitler. Hitler was horrible, horrible tyrant, a monster, but at least he didn’t have chemical or biological weapons.

    (2) This conflict is going much better than that one. Compared with World War II, this has been a cake walk.

  55. 55
    Stormy70 says:

    We have higher casualties this month because we are involved in a large offensive along the Euphrates River. I would think this would lead off a paragraph involving higher casualties in the press, but they are too busy sweating it out down here in Texas. August is crazy with left wing loonacy every year. Sorry, your anti-war mother is an anti-semitic extreme left type. Kind of ruins the overall message for most people.

    Hi, Darrell! Been on vacation?

  56. 56
    Nash says:

    DougJ: Saddam is probably worse than Hitler.

    DougJ finally succeeds in making John Cole’s place indistinguishable from Little Green Footballs.

    Sigh. I remember the golden days when Godwin was actually enforced.

  57. 57
    Otto Man says:

    DougJ:

    There are so many similarities between that conflict and this one. The stakes are very much the same and our reasons for getting involved are very much the same.

    Yes, the similarities are striking. After al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, we retaliated against the unrelated country of Iraq. Just like how after Pearl Harbor, we retaliated against the Australians.

    And remember, we managed to defeat both Germany and Japan in three years and eight months, securing the suicide of Hitler at the end. Just like how we’ve defeated all of al-Qaeda over the past three years and eleven months, and of course, secured the death of Bin Laden.

    The only two differences I can think of are:(1) Saddam is probably worse than Hitler. Hitler was horrible, horrible tyrant, a monster, but at least he didn’t have chemical or biological weapons.

    Yes, thank God we got all those chemical and biological weapons out of Saddam’s hands. I remember when Powell gave that detailed list of just what Saddam had, and in just what amounts. And I remember when Rumsfeld said we knew where these precise stockpiles were — right around Baghdad and Tikrit. And they were absolutely correct, right? Right?

    (2) This conflict is going much better than that one. Compared with World War II, this has been a cake walk.

    Wow, I don’t even know where to begin with that one. Pass the hookah, Doug, because I need to try what you’re smoking.

  58. 58
    Andrei says:

    John, you are missing a “/strong” tag after “Why are we in Iraq?” at the beginning of this post.

    What did your son die for? For the country. You may disagree with the current mission in Iraq, you may find it valueless, but we are in it together, and Casey Sheehan, a volunteer who re-enlisted in the summer of 2003, believed in that mission. I wish he were still alive. I wish all of them were.

    The entire problem with the discussion is something Steve mentions: Many of us who were opposed to the Iraq War felt it was the wrong way to solve the problem. I know I did. the problem is the WAR itself, not the people who serve in it or the people who support or oppose it. Further, many of us feel we are watching a train wreck occuring in how the war is being handled, and on how so many other issues this adminsitration is handling, some of which even you, John Cole, admit are way off base.

    It is BECAUSE we are all in this together, we are voicing our complaints that the way the situation is being handled is inappropriate. Often times, when we bring this up, many on the right question our patriotism or start in with slander. (Something that started long before Bush was office with the rise of rightwing talk radio.) As such, many of us have reached the tipping point in how we converse back, simply to be heard through all the noise, most likely compounding the noise problem.

    When any administration sends its soldiers into battle, it is understood they do with the upmost respect for how sacred a sacrifice it is for men and women to be put into harms way. Many of us feel this administration is not sufficiently burdening that repsonsbility, with everything from keeping protestors away from the President and shielding him from bad press, to bringing coffins home at night instead of in the day so we can commemerate their sacrifice, to not asking the population to pony up more responsiblity in fighting the war by asking for more volunteers or instuting some from of draft, to raising taxes to help pay to do things right instead of putting in taxe cuts.

    (Sidenote: I’m of the opinion that anyone who has served in the military should be exempt from taxes for their lifetime given their service to their country. I’m all for paying their taxes considering they fought for my freedom while I haven’t. As a Navy brat, I stayed away from the military mostly because my military childhood didn’t afford me a real childhood so I made up for that in my 20s.)

    There are so many aspects of this war thhat have been mishandled it’s actually scaring the crap out of many us. It is me at least.

    And you know what? The problem of the shrill left could have easily been solved by a competent neocon adminsitration executing their policies in a fashion that was responsble. That’s the bottom line. Had they handled the war correctly, not boggled the intel in the beginning, caught Osamma while also fighting the Iraq war, had they managed the situation the instigated themselves, the neocons would hold power for at least 20 years.

    But they didn’t, and people are upset. People like Cindy Sheehann. She has every right to her opinion, just like you do. Arguing about it might feel good for a day or two, but it’s nothing more than a distraction However, given how hard it is for anyone on the left to get an ounce of discussion over the WAR and how it should be handled, I’m fine with Ms. Sheehan causing as much of a ruckus as possible.

    Again, the easiest way to defuse the “shrill left” is to actually lead with some competency, which I’m afraid Bush lacks. The GOP holds the most power it has in quite some time, and they need to show some compentacy and lead.

    Ms. Sheehan isn’t holding anyone back from that.

  59. 59
    Darrell says:

    It wasn’t right when your side (and I mean the wider your side, not necessarily the John Cole your side) attacked us for disagreeing with President Bush and for discussing his opinions and possible motivations and even for using heated rhetoric. You may or may not be honest enough to admit that without even trying to provide an excuse.

    Yes Nash, let’s be honest… let’s examine exactly what the left means when they claim they are merely innocently “discussing his opinions and possible motivations”:

    “Bush lied people died”
    “War for oil”
    “Chickenhawks”
    Nazi “brownshirts” (by a former Dem Presidential candidate)
    terrorist filth = “minutemen”
    etc, etc, etc

    Yes, so many on the left haves demonstrated themselves to be so honorable. They’re simply “discussing opinions” and all, right? What could be wrong with that?

    you are just getting shat on unfairly in the exact same way you shat on others before.

    yes, how dare John Cole, little eichman that he is.. how dare he push back against you noble put-upon lefties.

  60. 60
    Darrell says:

    Hi, Darrell! Been on vacation?

    Yes, 8 days on the playas of Dominican Republic, then afterwards I was * really busy * cleaning my room

  61. 61
    Geoduck says:

    Why were we in europe in WW II to free a nation from a tyrant

    Just the one nation. All the others that the Nazis had overrun were outta luck.

  62. 62
    Marc says:

    you are just getting shat on unfairly in the exact same way you shat on others before.

    yes, how dare John Cole, little eichman that he is.. how dare he push back against you noble put-upon lefties.

    Really excellent logic there, Darrell. Someone complains that the right has been guilty of unfair smears and guilt-by-association, and how do you respond? By reminding us all of the Ward Churchill “scandal” that the right held against all people on the left. Well done.

  63. 63
    neil says:

    For what it’s worth, I am a barking moonbat who agrees that the first-quoted statement is stupid, or at least leaves out the main, and most damning, reasons that we made this colossal mistake, in favor of snarky tidbits about Bill Clinton.

    These reasons, of course, have to do with the Bush administration’s reliance on ideology and total rejection of empirical facts. This has been totally, nakedly evident throughout practically every stage of the war planning and execution. The cooked intelligence and hatred of the UN weapons inspectors who had it right all along. The shifting rationales for war, from phony 9/11 connections to the nonexistant WMD threat to the hollow humanitarian excuse. The lack of planning for the occupation (especially instructive when compared to the intricate planning for postwar political exploitation), with the brushing off of all Iraqi soldiers and former civil servants, to the staffing of key offices with kids who submitted their resumes to the Heritage Foundation. This is what we have seen all along, those of us who were not so blinded by our support for Bush that we could see that there was no way this crew was going to be able to shoot straight.

    And it’s this, by the way, that lines up so neatly with the Bush administration’s similar ideology-based viewpoint on science, economics, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Smear the experts if they disagree with your base. No such thing as a harsh political reality. This is the main tendency of Bush’s, in fact, that conservatives take issue with, but they still do not see how it is part and parcel of what happened in Iraq. And John, I know how you hate the phrase ‘reality-based community,’ but you should realize that it’s a specific rebuke to this incredibly arrogant attitude which has been taking our government down the tubes for the last 5 years, not just a playground taunt. Kevin Drum put it in the perfect context this morning.

    Frankly, the utter irony of the fact that the government has been taken over by elitist, ivory-tower conservatives with heads full of theory and no appreciation for how things work in reality, is just too much to bear, even for someone like me who is inclined to believe the worst about them. I can understand why some of you folks are having trouble facing up to the true nature of the people you supported for all this time. But if you look at the big picture, and look away from insignificant canards about Hans Blix’s personal politics, you will realize that all these mistakes have been written on the wall since January 2001.

  64. 64
    Nash says:

    Darrell takes a big swing at sarcasm:

    yes, how dare John Cole, little eichman that he is.. how dare he push back against you noble put-upon lefties.

    It’s a base hit! I am hoist by my own petard. Until you reminded me, I’d forgotten how the right-wing were little innocents and never resorted to calling those Americans who differed with them traitors.

    In this chicken-and-egg game, it’s all rotten eggs, all the time.

    Why not just admit that the left shouldn’t get so upset at being called nasty names and you shouldn’t get so upset when you getted called nasty things either? You cannot out-outrage us. Be a mensch and take the verbal licking you’ve earned. It’s your turn to bend over.

  65. 65
    James Richardson says:

    thanks stormy,it wouldn’t be a post without you saying the same thing you say in every other posting, over and over, despite the topic. much like a gop talking point derived from a marathon kool-aid drinking festival, you are consistent, even as the world around you is not.

  66. 66
    capriccio says:

    Crawford, Texas,
    August 14, 2005

    Dear Mrs Sheehan,
    I have been shown in the files of the Department of Defense that you are the mother of a son who has died gloriously on the field of battle.
    I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Democracy he died to save.
    I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
    Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
    George W. Bush

    (With apologies to A. Lincoln, lettter to Mrs. Bixby 11/21/1864, and a melancholy farewell to a nation where sincerity and respect–from the top down–once had real meaning.)

  67. 67
    Darrell says:

    I’d forgotten how the right-wing were little innocents and never resorted to calling those Americans who differed with them traitors

    Well on one side we have a former VP and Dem Presidential candidate referring to the Bush administration as Nazi “brownshirts”.. we also have Dem Senators calling our President a “chickenhawk” on the Senate floor. We have Dem congressmen telling us Bush “knew” in advance about 9/11.

    So remind us again Nash, which Republicans have called Dems “traitors”?? Please be specific, because we know that you honest well-intentioned lefties would never lie your asses off or anything like that.

  68. 68
    Otto Man says:

    Nice, Capriccio. Except apparently Bush will only refer to Sheehan as “Mom.”

  69. 69
    neil says:

    Well, there was that George W. Bush quote about those who lurk among us who are “the most insidious of traitors”… who was that, again.. damn..

    OH wait, that was George _H._ W. Bush, and he was talking about people who expose the names of covert agents.

  70. 70
    Nash says:

    Appeal to John Cole: Darrell is quite correct in the his assertion that there were no Republicans who ever called Democrats traitors, isn’t he?

    (NB: He claims I said “Republicans”, but a careful reading of the text will show I actually said “right-wing” and he also claims I said “Democrats” but a second careful reading of the text will show I actually said “those Americans who differed with [the right-wing]”. But I’d never accuse him of intentionally changing meaning and going off on an angry jag of nonsense by ignoring or dropping words like “media” from in front of “whore” so I’m sure his is a case of an honest oversight. Both times.)

    I think he’s right, but would feel more comfortable hearing it from an authoritative source who has followed the discourse of the past 5 years. I just wanted to check before I offered my retraction and an apology to Darrell.

    Darrell:

    So remind us again Nash, which Republicans have called Dems “traitors”?? Please be specific, because we know that you honest well-intentioned lefties would never lie your asses off or anything like that.

    If any other authority wants to set me straight, please do so. I wait anxiously to hear, so I can apologize to Darrell, because I’m sure he deserves to have one.

  71. 71
    Otto Man says:

    So remind us again Nash, which Republicans have called Dems “traitors”?? Please be specific, because we know that you honest well-intentioned lefties would never lie your asses off or anything like that.

    Well, Nash didn’t say “Republicans,” he said “right-wing.” I know that was just an honest mistake. You honest well-intentioned righties would never lie your asses off or anything like that. (Unless it was to get us into a war, of course.)

    Using Nash’s actual yardstick of the “right-wing,” here are just a few:

    O’REILLY: And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That’s what his intent was. His intent wasn’t to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

    Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you’re a traitor. Got it?

    Got it, Darrell? No, here’s one where he made the claim in the headline:

    Professor Ward Churchill is a Traitor

    Professor Ward Churchill is a traitor, in my estimation: that’s the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo”.

    O’Reilly loves the word, but the charge is all over the right-wing punditocracy. Go take a look at Ann Coulter’s
    Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
    , or Sean Hannity’s Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism, or any of the other Regnery guides to the conservative worldview that sees liberalism as either a passive supporter or active inducer of terrorism.

    And, no, I don’t think John Cole should be guilty by association with any of these idiots, since he’s stood up to them on plenty of occasions. But to pretend that the right is a collection of angels beset by these mean spirited liberals who will make Bill o’Reilly cry and Sean Hannity clutch his hanky to his chest, well, that’s just pathetic.

  72. 72
    James Richardson says:

    oh please darrell. you can’t throw a stone and not hit a rightie calling lefties week, elite, america-hating traitors. the great thing about the gop is that they have a whole base to do the name-calling for them. think blogsforbush, ann coulter on foxnews, lgf, and on and on and on. if you want a list spend five minutes on lexus-nexus. we’re busy trying to figure out how to clean up the mess dear leader is leaving us.

  73. 73
    DougJ says:

    Darrell is quite correct in the his assertion that there were no Republicans who ever called Democrats traitors, isn’t he?

    What about those that ARE traitors? I don’t think it is fair to call Senator Durbin a traitor, perhaps, but Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and the folks at Air America are all assuredly traitors.

  74. 74
    capelza says:

    What about those that ARE traitors? I don’t think it is fair to call Senator Durbin a traitor, perhaps, but Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and the folks at Air America are all assuredly traitors.

    Care to be specific in how they are traitors? Can you give real, concrete examples?

  75. 75
    AlphaOmega says:

    Yes little green footballs. LOL Man are some of these right wing radicals for real. Can’t we all just get along? LOL Howard Dean was great today on face the nation.

    http://www.crooksandliars.com great site not mine but still great.

    Keep given them the truth and they will think it is HELL!!!

  76. 76
    Darrell says:

    Otto man, I can feel your righteous leftist anger. You go man.. Great examples.. Senator Durbin likens the behavior of our troops to Pol Pot and the Nazi SS, and Ward Churchill calls the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmans”.. and O’Reilly, with justification, points out that such comparisons are traitorous. You really got a ‘solid’ point there, let me tell you

    I mean, here we have all these prominent Dems (former Presidential candidate, Dem Senators, Dem Congressmen, head of the DNC) calling Republicans Nazi “brownshirts”, Bush “knew” in advance of 9/11, “chickenhawks” etc..

    And your response is to point out Bill O’Reilly’s criticism of “little Eichmans”. I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but I think most Americans would agree that Ward Churchill’s rhetoric * really is * traitorous. And since when is Bill O’Reilly ‘right wing’. Do we now get to lump Lyndon Larouche and his followers in with you lefties?

    As for Ann Coulter, I haven’t read her book, but doesn’t she point to specific, you know, ACTUAL acts of historical treason? Or does she hurl accusations of treason at the left, simply for disagreeing with Bush?

  77. 77
    Neo-Progressive says:

    “it is perfectly acceptable to truncate, distort, and misrepresent whatever someone has said, as long as you are on the side of the Righteous..”

    What a remarkably accurate description of the Administration’s and the Republican party’s tactics!

    Stop being coy. Most Americans now know that we are in Iraq because it was Georgie Boy’s “idee fixe”. Iraq was on the agenda before 9/11. The Boy King wanted to best his daddy, and provide fat tax dollar contracts to his and Cheney’s cronies. Nothing like fostering war-profiteering: it brings gobs of money to the political campaign coffers.

    As for Cindy Sheehan, she has every right to do what she is doing. As much as you radical fascists would like to eradicate it, free speech is STILL a right in this country. If you don’t like it, suggest a military coup and the imposition of martial law. So, you can goose-step along with the corrupt, greedy, and morally bankrupt, Republicans.

  78. 78
    AlphaOmega says:

    I think the reason the righties have their panties in a bunch is because their BS is finally being called what it is and the rest of America is finally waking up.

    Their hole if you repeat it enough they will believe it is not working anymore because of all the canards they have floated over the last 5 years or so.

    Good luck fellas but it is all your own fault time to lay in that bed of yours…oh and quit your damn wining and take some responsibility for a change it will get you a hell of a lot farther then the name calling all the time!

  79. 79
    Neo-Progressive says:

    My comment is awaitng moderation, hey? Surprise, surprise. This is the second right-wing blog today that will not publish my post. So, I was right. Right-wingers do not like free-speech… Dissent won’t be tolerated. How unAmerican!

  80. 80
    AlphaOmega says:

    Here’s a little something to chew on for ya

  81. 81
    AlphaOmega says:

    The righties love playing the victim that too is getting very tiring guys…

  82. 82
    DougJ says:

    As for Ann Coulter, I haven’t read her book, but doesn’t she point to specific, you know, ACTUAL acts of historical treason?

    Yes, Ann Coulter’s book is carefully researched and cites numberous examples of actual treaon committed by liberals. In particular, she makes a very compelling case that the liberals’ favorite boogeyman, Joe McCarthy, really behaved heroically.

    Similarly, I imagine that many historians will look back on the actions of Ms. Coulter herself as heroic. Nothing makes me more proud to be a conservative than watching her rip the libruls a new one.

  83. 83
    John Cole says:

    My comment is awaitng moderation, hey? Surprise, surprise. This is the second right-wing blog today that will not publish my post. So, I was right. Right-wingers do not like free-speech… Dissent won’t be tolerated. How unAmerican!

    Goiod god I will be glad when the Poorman traffic stops.

    Listen, you knucklehead, I have spam filter that does not allow comments from new commenters until I have approved the first one by that person. When I approve the first one, you are free to post at will.

    So, yes. Your comment sat in the moderation cure for the 15 minutes I was away from the computer doing dishes. I am back now, working on something, and saw this and approved your comment.,

    Some would argue the premise “Guilty until proven Innocent” is similarly un-American.

  84. 84
    Darrell says:

    Nash wrote:

    Appeal to John Cole:

    Translation: “John, make Darrell go away and stop posting. He makes me feel so stupid”

  85. 85
    Nash says:

    Work with me here, Darrell.

    Here, I’m trying to work on a way to form an apology for falsely claiming that no right-wingers have been calling Americans who disagree with them traitors, but you aren’t cooperating, because first you make the quite honest and understandable and certainly not intentionaly mistake of completely changing my words. Twice. Then when some of the authorities I’ve appealed to in helping me form my apology to you point to people who are actually Republicans who have called others traitors, you change what we were discussing that I need to apologize about and confirm that she has called people she disagreed with traitors, because, as you say, she was right. I’m sure it was an accident that you are proving my original claim to be true. Please find some way for me to need to apologize and retract my original fallacious claim.

    So, you are not helping me out any, here, Darrell, I’m trying to need to apologize and you are unfortunately proving what I said in the first place to be quite true.

    Come on, Darrell, work with me.

  86. 86
    AlphaOmega says:

    Who’s afraid of the big bad Darrell… LOL

  87. 87
    Darrell says:

    The Boy King wanted to best his daddy, and provide fat tax dollar contracts to his and Cheney’s cronies.

    yes of course, all you well-intentioned lefties want is to have an honest discussion of differences, isn’t that right?

  88. 88
    AlphaOmega says:

    I will leave you with one assignment while everyone seems to be throwing the traitor word around go read this article and see what you think about the fine republican Sen. Pat roberts. Read it before you attack me please…

    This stinks to high heaven.

  89. 89
    John Cole says:

    Start embedding your damn links, AlphaOmega, or I am going to be your own personal Omega.

  90. 90
    DougJ says:

    You rock, Darrel. I’ve been feeling like the only REAL conservative in these comments for a bit — Stormy hasn’t been around much — but with you here, I feel the cavalry has arrived.

    BTW, did you hear the thing Rush did yesterday comparing what’s going in Iraq right now to what was going with our Founding Fathers in the Revolutionary War era? It was really eye-opening. Full of fact that the libruls just don’t want to hear.

  91. 91
    Nash says:

    Darrell, the facts, the facts! They are conspiring against us.

    Here’s a young Republican writing on behalf of the New Jersey Republican party. And he seems to have it in for you and me, Darrell, because he calls Democrats traitors.

    Patriots and Traitors
    By: Adam Teiichi Yoshida

    This election may be the most important in living memory. I believe that it is the most important since 1864, when the voters of the North were asked to choose between the folksy Republican who had led them through three years of war and a Democratic “war hero” whose election would almost certainly lead to capitulation and defeat. There were two sides in 1864: patriots, who were willing to save the Union regardless of the cost, and traitors, who were willing to lose the war for ideological reasons. The same is true today.

    Let us understand the cause for which we are fighting. The enemy is both like and unlike any other which America has ever faced: like our foes of the past, the Islamist hates the West and seeks to establish a totally new world order. Unlike our other enemies, the Islamist lurks on the periphery, fighting by dishonourable but effective means. They have no armies of tanks, no fleets of Aircraft Carriers, no armadas of bombers: yet the danger posed by this enemy is the greatest that America has ever faced.
    Consider, for a moment, what it would mean if a single nuclear bomb went off in a single American city. What would the effects be? Would any form of Constitutional government even survive? Would it if, instead of one bomb, it were five? How would American society cope with a Smallpox plague that killed millions?

    The Democrats assume that such suggestions are an exaggeration, a ploy to scare Americans. John F. Kerry assures us that the terrorist threat is, “exaggerated.” But is it? If I’d told you, on September 10th, 2001 that terrorists were going to hijack civilian planes and crash them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, what would you have said?

    [snip]

    Why do the facts hate America and you and me so much, Darrell? Please help me out here, because this dink is taking on a lot of water and my arms are getting tired from all the bailing.

  92. 92
    AlphaOmega says:

    Oh I’m scared… That was really bad but I suppose you just couldn’t resist. Try to be funny next time…

  93. 93
    Neo-Progressive says:

    Alpha-Omega,

    “The righties love playing the victim that too is getting very tiring guys…”

    You are correct, the righties are a bunch of whiners addicted to free lunches. They whine about taxes but they are happy to freeload on the taxpayer for services and infrastructure.

    Just look at the religious right. Nobody forces their women to have abortions, nobody forces them to marry gays, and no one ever stands at the entry of their churches to prevent them from worshipping. Yet, they whine and get outraged if the rest of the world does not think like them. They are free to exercise their right to free speech but want to deny it to anyone else. Who’s harassing who here?

  94. 94
    DougJ says:

    How would American society cope with a Smallpox plague that killed millions?

    And what if Saddam had had Smallpox ready to spring on us? What then? Would you libruls have supported the attck then? Or would you have said “Oh, no, he’ll give them up if we bargain with him?

  95. 95
    AlphaOmega says:

    Hey neo,

    Have you read the article about sen. roberts on rawstory.com. Very well done and also has a timeline to go with it.

  96. 96
    AlphaOmega says:

    Well dougJ I suppose that all depends on whether or not you are credible. At this point not many in this adminstration has a leg left to stand on…

  97. 97
    Nash says:

    Darrell, you are positively killing me here.

    FNC transcript from the June 23 Hannity & Colmes:

    COLMES: Are all the American people that don’t support him [President George W. Bush] dumb?
    COULTER: No. I think, as I indicated in my last book, they’re traitors.

    It’s just a snippet, but I’m worried that this is Ann Coulter, a Republican, calling every American who doesn’t support President Bush a traitor.

    I so want to apologize to you for making a fallacious statement about right-wingers calling Americans who disagree with them traitors, but times are tough and I keep running up on the jagged shoals of fact. If only they’d learn to not post transcripts, we’d have fewer of these problems and I could get on with apologizing to you.

  98. 98
    AlphaOmega says:

    Nice work Nash!

    More of those pesky facts, I love it…

  99. 99
    DougJ says:

    But what if he had had Smallpox, alphomega? We had no way of knowing he didn’t. Isn’t it safer that we went in? Isn’t it better to take care of problems before they become crises?

  100. 100
    DougJ says:

    I think Ann Coulter was kidding there. That’s what you guys don’t get, that she a deadpan sense of humor.

  101. 101
    Nash says:

    [in light of my recent posts, I want to make it clear that this one is a sarcasm-free one.]

    If I didn’t do that earlier link properly, John, my apologies. I thought they formatted automatically? It looks like you had to clean up after me and I’m sorry for the extra work if so.

  102. 102
    AlphaOmega says:

    One question have you ever watched the daily briefings or the president for that matter and how they feel about hypatheticals. Come on. You can’t have it both ways.

  103. 103
    Nash says:

    DougJ brings out the old “I was only kidding when I said I had fucked your sister” joke:

    I think Ann Coulter was kidding there. That’s what you guys don’t get, that she a deadpan sense of humor.

  104. 104
    Darrell says:

    Uh Nash, sorry to break the news to you, but there * really are * some who are willing to lose this war for ideological, hateful, traitorous reasons. Here is one example. The author you quote did not say anything at all like “all leftists are traitors”, so your point is..??

  105. 105
    AlphaOmega says:

    I think Ann Coulter was kidding there. That’s what you guys don’t get, that she a deadpan sense of humor.

    Are you kidding me?

  106. 106
    John Cole says:

    NP Nash- Justclik the little arrows there above the comments and that will open the buttons.

  107. 107
    Neo-Progressive says:

    Hey Darrell,

    “yes of course, all you well-intentioned lefties want is to have an honest discussion of differences, isn’t that right?”

    What does your comment have to do with the price of milk?

    You are welcome to blind yourself to the lies, corruption, greed, arrogance, stupidity, illiteracy, and incompetence of your Masters. You are eventually going to have to pay for it, just like the rest of us. Don’t complain then…

    And, by the way, why are you not in Iraq, Chickenhawk? Too hot for you maybe? Or do you value your sorry ass to much to put it on the line? Hypocrite!

  108. 108
    Darrell says:

    I agree with DougJ, Ann Coulter really does have a deadpan sense of humor. I would have to see the video to determine whether or not she was serious. If she was serious, you would have a point.. well, sort of

  109. 109
    AlphaOmega says:

    For the record John I apologise to and will format my links also.

  110. 110
    DougJ says:

    Alpha, not all hypotheticals are the same. The bottom line is that we didn’t know what Saddam had or didn’t have. We had no idea. Invading was the safe move, the smart move.

    And more than that, what it signals is a long overdue move to a faith-based foreign policy. We need to have faith that we can spread freedom, and faith that our leaders will do the right thing. This is not the time for doubt. I’m sure many of you libruls mean well, but your doubt is misplaced. We have a president who is motivated by faith, and he needs our faith.

  111. 111
    James Richardson says:

    ok darrel and doug. we’ll totally ignore the right calling everyone who dares disagree with them, their policies, their talking points, traitors, america haters, out of touch, a threat to america, and so on. we’ll ignore the hundreds of websites that chronicle the depths to which they will go to obtain power, and the corruption they show once in power.

    you’re absolutely right. there is not one conservative ever who has ever said anything incorrect or inflammatory. it was only liberals. we’ll ignore delay, rush, oreilly, hannity, cheney, rove, coulter, savage, lott, dobson, colson, santorum, rorhrbacher, horowitz, blunt, gannon, luntz, daniels, sensenbrenner, and the dozens of other carefully chronicled examples of the GOP denoucing liberals.

    all those examples are simply the elite america-hating liberals having the nerve to question the direction of their country by representing the views of the voters who put them in congress. the gop is angellic and the democrats and everythign they believe in are wrong. rules and ettiquete only apply to democrats and since the gop has the majority democracy is now on hold and the repugs can say and do whatever they want without fear of reprisal.

    yes, we understand your view of america perfectly. we understand your need to continuously bash us in order to take attention away from the wonderful job you’re doing with country and keep you from having to reexamine the policies and notions you have fought for so blindly. what a wonderful wonerland you live in.

  112. 112
    AlphaOmega says:

    Instead of providing a plan and enough troops to take control of Iraq, officials, advisers and consultants in and around the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office bet on Iraqi exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, who assured them that Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators.

    Gen. John Keane, the vice chief of the Army staff during the war, said some defense officials believed the exiles’ promises. “We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be,” Keane told a House committee in July.

    Rumsfeld’s office “was utterly, arrogantly, ignorantly and negligently unprepared” for the aftermath of the war, said Larry Diamond, who was a political adviser in Baghdad from January to March of this year.

  113. 113
    Darrell says:

    Hey Darrell,

    “yes of course, all you well-intentioned lefties want is to have an honest discussion of differences, isn’t that right?”

    What does your comment have to do with the price of milk?

    Neo-Progressive wrote:

    The Boy King wanted to best his daddy, and provide fat tax dollar contracts to his and Cheney’s cronies.

    I quoted you to provide a case-in-point example that so many on the left are nothing but stupid dishonest pieces of sh*t who are not the least bit interested in an honest discussion of differences.. as Nash had suggested earlier on this thread

  114. 114
    DougJ says:

    James, unfotunately, what you write is more true than you know. It’s exaggerated, obviously, but the truth is that WE don’t need to reexamine our policies, because our policies are working. The truth is that we won the last election and elections have cosequences. The truth is that God has blessed these United States and that we live in a wonderful wonderland.

  115. 115
    AlphaOmega says:

    We have a president who is motivated by faith, and he needs our faith.

    Just not blind faith like you are evidently following. Wake up like the rest of the country finally is.

  116. 116
    DougJ says:

    Rumsfeld’s office “was utterly, arrogantly, ignorantly and negligently unprepared” for the aftermath of the war, said Larry Diamond, who was a political adviser in Baghdad from January to March of this year.

    Mr. Diamond has a bone to pick, probably because he was pasased over promotion. It’s the same story again, the same as O’Neil, Clarke, Wilson, Shineski, and the rest. When people don’t get promoted, they whine to the MSM about how evil the Bushies are. How many times do we have to hear this story?

  117. 117
    capelza says:

    I think Ann Coulter was kidding there. That’s what you guys don’t get, that she a deadpan sense of humor.

    I’m sure she shares the same kind of humour with Ward Churchill, right? He was only joking, too. Good lord, the old “I was only kidding” excuse. I actually saw Ann Coulter on TV before I knew who she was (in that she was some famous person) and I remember thinking, “What a looper”. The crap that streamed out of her mouth was astounding.

    As for her “scholarship”? I have had people tell me that because she uses copious footnotes, her work must be valid. Footnotes are easy, but it doesn’t mean the sources for them are accurate or used correctly or in context. I know, I had to use tons in college.

  118. 118
    Nash says:

    John, thanks, will comply.

    Darrel:

    The author you quote did not say anything at all like “all leftists are traitors”, so your point is..??

    The point of Yoshida’s entire column is that Republicans = patriots and Democrats = traitors. All appearances to the contrary, Darrell, I’m convinced you are capable of understanding that.

    Criminently, Darrell, you win, my sarcasm supply is just totally sapped. My point is that I made a statement that you refuted and you changed it in order to make it “harder” to prove, in your rubric. Subsequently, I and several others have shown examples from every point on the compass that not only was what I said correct in the first place, but the changed version that you created and claimed to refute was true as well. Yoshida is at least one example of a Republican calling Democrats traitors.

    I’m just naive enough to wish there were such a thing as a blog arbitrator to step in a put an argument out of its misery in favor of one side or the other. I’m just realistic enough to know that doesn’t happen.

    But the next time you come back with the “provide proof the Republicans have called Democrats traitors” crap, I’m linking to this post, because I think others will have fun reading it and I sure will have fun remembering it.

  119. 119
    Neo-Progressive says:

    “DougJ Says:

    How would American society cope with a Smallpox plague that killed millions?

    And what if Saddam had had Smallpox ready to spring on us? What then? Would you libruls have supported the attck then? Or would you have said “Oh, no, he’ll give them up if we bargain with him?”

    What if, what if, what if… The inspectors were in Iraq, and found nothing. Why on earth would you believe that a third-world country would be shrewd enough to hide chemical weapons programs successfully? If it were, then, it would not have been a third-world country, now, would it?

    With what-ifs, we could easily go and invade every country in the world. Just in case…

    And, by the way, have you given any thought to the fact that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis (not a single Iraqi in sight)? Saudi Arabia, that beacon of human rights… The shining light of the Middle East… Compared to the Saudis, Hussein ia an amateur. But your President is still kissing the Saudis’ collective ass. We never even got an apology from those bastards.

  120. 120
    AlphaOmega says:

    Hey doug J there is a boogey man in the house 2 houses away from you better go invade it you know just to be sure…

    Come on that is retarded!

  121. 121
    Otto Man says:

    And since when is Bill O’Reilly ‘right wing’.

    Wow, apparently I’ve been punk’d. Because there’s no way someone is seriously this stupid. Not even Doug J.

  122. 122
    AlphaOmega says:

    Ok I’m done! doug J is living in la la land and I just can’t take it anymore. Good luck guys your gonna need it believe me!

  123. 123
    DougJ says:

    Look, there was simply no way of knowing what Saddam would do next. No way. He could have had smallpox, he could have had nukes, he could have been about to attack Israel. I think Bush went with his gut and his faith, and I’ll take that over the most scrupulously prepared lefty policy paper anyday. Clinton loved facts and figures and what did he leave us with, a recession, and 9/11.

    Bush goes with his gut and he’s given us safety from terrorism and a robust economy. Not to mention the freedom and democracy he’s given the Middle East.

  124. 124
    Darrell says:

    James Richardson wrote:

    you’re absolutely right. there is not one conservative ever who has ever said anything incorrect or inflammatory. it was only liberals.

    Pound away on that strawman James. No one ever claimed that “not one conservative” every said anything incorrect or inflamatory. I did point out, that Dem smears against Republicans came out of the mouths of some of the most prominent Dem officials. Much worse came from the left blogosphere.

    Any example of prominent Republicans saying anything along the lines of accusing Dems of being Nazi “brownshirts”? No? Any equivalent examples on the Republican side of the aisle to Dem smears that Bush “knew” in advance about 9/11? Just curious.. since you Dems are whining like little bitches about mean Republicans

  125. 125
    AlphaOmega says:

    Doug J what bone does larry have to pick anyway. You said he had a bone to pick where are the FACTS to back that statement up.. I thought so.

    Like I said that crap is getting old and the american people are catching on to it so keep it up you ship will sink even faster.

  126. 126
    DougJ says:

    Wow, apparently I’ve been punk’d. Because there’s no way someone is seriously this stupid. Not even Doug J.

    I didn’t say that. O’Reilly is right wing. I’m actually not a huge fan of his. I think he is just trying to get attention sometimes.

  127. 127
    Otto Man says:

    Just curious.. since you Dems are whining like little bitches about mean Republicans

    Darrell, seriously, I think your Mom’s calling.

  128. 128
    Otto Man says:

    I didn’t say that. O’Reilly is right wing. I’m actually not a huge fan of his. I think he is just trying to get attention sometimes.

    Sorry, Doug. That was a Darrell quote.

    But thanks for backing me up. You’d have to be insane to think Falafel Boy was somehow not in lockstep with the right wing.

  129. 129
    AlphaOmega says:

    They have NOTHING…

  130. 130
    Nash says:

    And since my sarcasm has been so effectively drained thanks to Darrell, I think this is as good a place as any to tell you, John, that the new look and inner workings of your blog are a very good thing indeed. I am a pest at a couple of sites, but no where so effortlessly as here.

    No matter the amount of abuse I heap on you, that’s a genuine compliment. I’d have other compliments too, but I always get kicked to the ass-kissing curb when I mention them. So, that will have to do.

  131. 131
    Otto Man says:

    Any example of prominent Republicans saying anything along the lines of accusing Dems of being Nazi “brownshirts”?

    Well, off the top of my head, there was Sen. Rick Santorum’s comment equating Democratic support of the filibuster with Hitler’s invasion of Paris:

    I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942, “I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.”

  132. 132
    Neo-Progressive says:

    “We have a president who is motivated by faith, and he needs our faith.

    Just not blind faith like you are evidently following. Wake up like the rest of the country finally is.”

    Wrong!~ This President is not motivated by faith. He is just pandering to the religious right. He is an influence-peddler (like the rest of the family) and a political slut.

    We have a president who is a sociopath and an intellectual dwarf. He and his handlers are motivated by nothing but self-interest. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the other minions are evil people. As in nasty, malfeasant, and totally devoid of humanity.

  133. 133
    DougJ says:

    You’d have to be insane to think Falafel Boy was somehow not in lockstep with the right wing.

    Actually, I wouldn’t say he was in “lockstep”. He’s got his own strange agenda, which I don’t always understand. I tend to think that if the wind changed direction, he could easily become a big lefty. Anything for ratings.

  134. 134
    Otto Man says:

    I tend to think that if the wind changed direction, he could easily become a big lefty. Anything for ratings.

    Yeah, I could believe that. But for the time being, he believes his success is rooted in cheerleading for the right.

    Remember when he claimed he’d never trust the administration if 6 months into the war we still hadn’t found WMDs? Yeah, apparently Bill doesn’t remember that either.

  135. 135
    Darrell says:

    Well, off the top of my head, there was Sen. Rick Santorum’s comment equating Democratic support of the filibuster with Hitler’s invasion of Paris:

    Although Santorum, unlike Al Gore, was not calling the Dems Nazis or “brownshirts”, I agree Santorum’s analogy was stupid and ridiculous

    Neo-Progressive wrote:

    We have a president who is a sociopath and an intellectual dwarf

    Nash, do you still stand by your earlier statement that the left simply wants to have an “honest discussion” about differences, but that the left’s ‘voices of reason’ are drowned out by eeevil Rethuglicans shouting you down with accusations of ‘traitor’? Is that what you call a ‘reality based’ perspective?

  136. 136
    AlphaOmega says:

    Well doug still waiting for the pesky facts on Larry Diamond having a bone to pick against this admin.

    You said it now back it up or your credibility is worth as much as some other people I know…

    This is exactly the crap that needs to stop on any side. If you can’t back it up then keep you fricken mouth shut…

  137. 137
    Neo-Progressive says:

    “Darrell Says:

    Hey Darrell,

    “yes of course, all you well-intentioned lefties want is to have an honest discussion of differences, isn’t that right?”

    What does your comment have to do with the price of milk?

    Neo-Progressive wrote:

    The Boy King wanted to best his daddy, and provide fat tax dollar contracts to his and Cheney’s cronies.

    I quoted you to provide a case-in-point example that so many on the left are nothing but stupid dishonest pieces of sh*t who are not the least bit interested in an honest discussion of differences.. as Nash had suggested earlier on this thread

    August 14th, 2005 at 5:02 pm ”

    And your point is? You still have not made it. I strongly suspect that, as a nazi, you are definitely NOT interested in an honest discussion. All you care about is IMPOSING your points of view on the rest of us, just like your President and the rest of his ilk, have been trying to do for almost five years.

    The list of lies and dishonest statements from this Administration is staggering. Fortunately, this is the age of the Internet, where everything is recorded for posterity. But, hey, facts are stupid things, are they not?
    Ever since that sorry excuse of a human being came to power, it has been a long descent into stupidity and crass ignorance.

    The moron is even advocating Intelligent Design as a viable alternative to Evolution. Right! Next we’ll be teaching Alchemy as a viable alternative to Chemistry. Talk about the dumbing-down of America.

    Face it, righties, you are now losing the war, not just in Iraq, but on the domestic front. Out of your ignorance, stupidity, and arrogance… Come November 2006, the Grand Old Prevaricator party will be out. I cannot wait for this country to come out of the Middle Ages.

  138. 138
    AlphaOmega says:

    Hey darrel that crap goes on on both sides so stop with the holyier than thou… Please

  139. 139
    Neo-Progressive says:

    DougJ Says:

    “Wow, apparently I’ve been punk’d. Because there’s no way someone is seriously this stupid. Not even Doug J.

    I didn’t say that. O’Reilly is right wing. I’m actually not a huge fan of his. I think he is just trying to get attention sometimes.”

    Sometimes? O’Reilly is all about O’Reilly. Coulter is all about Coulter. And Limbaugh is all about Limbaugh. And you all buy into their self-aggrandizing scheme.

  140. 140
    ppGaz says:

    After all, I am responsible for everything Michelle Malkin, Mike Gallagher, and Bill O’Reilly say.

    Well, to quote a great blogger — you — this is where you apaprently nail yourself to the cross and then insert the spear. Jesus, as they say, wept.

    Why are we in Iraq? Because the country made a very large mistake, John, that’s why.

    It’s okay to speak plainly, frankly and simply once in while. Cindy Sheehan is theater, whether you agree with her, or not.

    The war, however, is real. Actual dialogue, as opposed to the usual “here’s a thread where you can all cut and paste your usual comments”, could be helpful.

    It is not the goal or purpose of the United States to free countries from their own tyrants. Never has been, and never will be. That bullshit is getting pretty tedious, and it ain’t feeding the PR bulldog any more, in case nobody noticed.

    The mushroom cloud argument is completely specious. If such a cloud erupts in the Western world, it will not have come from Iraq. Nor will fighting in Iraq from now till hell freezes over prevent it.

    Why are we in Iraq? Because this country does not understand the true nature of Islamic radicalism, period. In fact, it does not understand the true nature of any religious radicalism. It’s a clear and present danger, and will be for a long time, so it might behoove us to learn more about it. It ain’t goin away. It will get worse, before it gets better, if it gets better.

  141. 141
    AlphaOmega says:

    Maybe rush should use some of that talent on lone from God to get his facts straight cause that has got to be pissing the big guy off.

  142. 142
    matt says:

    Total cop-out, John.

    “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?”

    She was told her son was going to Iraq because it had WMD that were a threat to the US. We later find out that Iraq didn’t have WMD and it wasn’t a threat to the US. So, she’s asking, if not for ridding Iraq of WMD, what did her son give his life for? And of course he gave it for his country, that’s the “no duh” answer. That’s not what she’s asking and you know that.

    And that, “Bush didn’t kill your son, an insurgent did.” That’s a snot-nosed punk answer, I wanted to punch you in the face when I read that. If this country went to war based on untruths, the people who sent us there are just as morally responsible, in God’s eyes anyway, as are the people who literally killed him.

  143. 143
    Jim Caputo says:

    Bob says…
    She’s clearly calling him George in an attempt to degrade the man, and it pisses me off. George (err, I mean George Bush) wrote her a letter expressing condolences over a son lost in war

    Yeah, I can see why you’d be upset that she doesn’t respect the man who lied to a country to lead us into war which got her son killed and then sent her a form letter about how terrible it was that her son died.

  144. 144
    James Richardson says:

    darrel, if you want to take one or two quotes and use them to represent the whole of the left, then allow us to use sensenbrenner, santorum, dobson and rush and prime examples of the right.

    doug, winning power is not the same as using it wisely. it’s hard to blames liberals for everything when there aren’t any more in power, eh? watch those poll numbers fall man. of course cindy and all those who had the nerve to change their mind after all the (lies) reasons we went into Iraq turned out to be (lies) false, they must hate america. because disagreeing with bush and the GOP is hating america.

    since hwoever the GOP controls the gov’t and the disaster that is iraq, it can’t be their fault…. it must be the few remaining dems in congeress, and the aclu, and the afl-cio, and… and…

  145. 145
    AlphaOmega says:

    Hey james I think you summed up their position well. I must say it is quite pathetic…

  146. 146
    Darrell says:

    James Richardson wrote:

    darrel, if you want to take one or two quotes and use them to represent the whole of the left, then allow us to use sensenbrenner, santorum, dobson and rush and prime examples of the right

    Actually James, I quoted a former Democrat VP and Presidential candidate, Dem Senators, Dem Congressmen, and the former head of the DNC. I’d say that’s a weee bit more than simply “one or two” quotes used to represent the left, wouldn’t you agree?

    That was my point. The hateful smears are coming from the very highest levels of the Democrat party, not simply from some isolated fringe group

  147. 147
    Nash says:

    Nash, do you still stand by your earlier statement that the left simply wants to have an “honest discussion” about differences, but that the left’s ‘voices of reason’ are drowned out by eeevil Rethuglicans shouting you down with accusations of ‘traitor’? Is that what you call a ‘reality based’ perspective?

    Darrell, we really need to get you some second level reading skills. You’ve got an entire searchable thread now to prove I ever said that. You will find those words in various places, but not linked in the bastardized fashion you’ve just put in my mouth. While we are looking at our sundials while you are away doing that, the rest of us will remember that my original point was to chide Mr. Cole for expecting to be treated well or even fairly by his interlocutors when his “side” didn’t hold themselves to any standards of decency either.

    Mine is actually a sinful position for a practicing Christian like myself to hold. I’ve been saying, ultimately, “screw it, quit griping about how others twist and mangle and omit your words to change your meaning. You fight for a side that’s been doing the same thing. Keep doing it. Don’t complain when it’s done to you.”

    I’m not into the who is doing it worse game, I leave that to others to play. But when you start playing stupid little “he called Republicans brownshirts” types of boo frickin hoo games, I’m going to call you on it by reminding everyone else (not you, because you must have a plausible sense that hypocrisy is shameful to have it mean anything) that your side has been doing it just as well and for just as long. There are no winners here, Darrell. There aren’t and there won’t be. So bring the nasty; we will too. You and John should quit crying like little girls when we do. Even when we cheat and change your words. We’ve talked ourselve into believing, maybe incorrectly, that we learned how to do this from you. Spinning Cindy Sheehan seems to be one of our first large successes at dominating the dynamic of a discussion by lying. Don’t spoil it for us, we are enjoying it.

    Since there in reality isn’t such a thing as a monolithic Left or a unibrow Right, then all statements, even of the kind I sometimes use as shortcuts, that one side is this and one side is that must be taken as just that, shortcuts, not applicable in all cases. So, there is no Left that wants a meaningful discussion, there are some on the left. There is no Right that wants to call all lefties traitors, there are some who do so. Cut the “never said it, prove it” crap.

    What would be really really fun and surprising would be if you would raise up the level and honesty of your reasoning and argumentation a notch or two, then we could have that discussion you are talking about at an adult level.

    Now, I’m sure I’ve just said something that contradicts something else I’ve said. Prove it, then sue me. How’s that for raising up the level of my reasoning. At least it raises the level of honesty, doncha think? It’s a start.

  148. 148
    Darrell says:

    matt wrote:

    We later find out that Iraq didn’t have WMD and it wasn’t a threat to the US

    Yes of course, Iraq was no threat to the US.. none whatsoever. Saddam harboring and supporting known terrorists in his country?.. no big deal. Terrorist training camps in Iraq complete with airplane fuselages.. no threats there, huh? Financial support to terrorists? It was his country after all, right?..proven history of producing and using WMD’s while never having shown evidence of destruction of WMD’s that Iraq had ADMITTED to having… Don’t worry, be happy.. Networks of dual use chemical manufacturing found. With Saddam’s history, he could be trusted, right?

    I wanted to punch you in the face when I read that

    you know what, I’d love to watch that, just to laugh when John Cole knocks your buck teeth down your throat

  149. 149
    AlphaOmega says:

    Hey darrel are you talking about all the crap that Powel was pushing at the UN security councel that he later apologised for. Just curious! Did you catch the apology part. Just wondering.

    Darrel I want you to put a list of links together that support your mouth cause so far you got NOTHING…

    I really want to go read about all this stuff you are talking about so please provide the links for us all!

    We will wait patiently cause this is gonna be good.

  150. 150
    Boronx says:

    There you go. That is Why Are We In Iraq?®. I don’t believe it for a minute. But many of you do. And so does Cindy Sheehan:

    So what do you believe? I don’t hold you personally responsible for justifying the war, but it is very telling that neither you nor any other ardent war supporter can’t after a year of build up and 2 years of war, come up with an explanation that you are willing or able to articulate.

    What did your son die for? For the country.

    But why did “the country”, Bush, actually, ask him to die? Why did Bush lie to him and everyone else? You won’t even say “for the good of the country”, because you can’t even justify that much, which, for God’s sake, ought to be a bare minimum.

    You may disagree with the current mission in Iraq, you may find it valueless, but we are in it together, and Casey Sheehan, a volunteer who re-enlisted in the summer of 2003, believed in that mission.

    Casey’s mom said that he told her he didn’t believe in the mission but wanted to go back to support his buddies.

    And, no, we’re not all in this together. The Bush administration and all it’s hangers on in the right wing media have abandoned any rational discussion of iraq policy to defend the indefensible way they started the war and the indefensible way they’ve prosecuted it. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the power, so it’s lesser mortals like US Soldiers and innocent Iraqis that bear the brunt.

  151. 151
    Marc says:

    Yes of course, Iraq was no threat to the US.. none whatsoever. Saddam harboring and supporting known terrorists in his country?.. no big deal. Terrorist training camps in Iraq complete with airplane fuselages.. no threats there, huh? Financial support to terrorists? It was his country after all, right?..proven history of producing and using WMD’s while never having shown evidence of destruction of WMD’s that Iraq had ADMITTED to having… Don’t worry, be happy.. Networks of dual use chemical manufacturing found. With Saddam’s history, he could be trusted, right?

    Wow. What’s the weather like on Bizarro World?

  152. 152
    ppGaz says:

    Again, the easiest way to defuse the “shrill left” is to actually lead with some competency, which I’m afraid Bush lacks

    A very sentient comment …. but …..

    Two things: One, I don’t assume that Bush wants to defuse the shrills (left, right, or middle). They are a convenient political foil, and can be held blameworthy later when the thing falls apart it if does. Two, we should hope that it does not fall apart, but it very well could, and Bush’s leadership, if it holds true to form, is not helping at this point, either in this country, or in Iraq. Bush would rather flip off his adversaries so that he can bitch about them later, than unite the country. How many times does he have to prove that, before the country catches on? It may already have caught on, be he hasn’t, if it has.

    The way to defuse the worriers is to demonstrate that he has a clear grasp of the nature of radicalism and the proper role of this country in living in world that is more and more peopled by radicals. Right now, we are acting like a country that has no clue. I suspect that this is one reason why the people of Europe think Bush is such an ass. They’ve endured the radicalism of the Algerians and the IRA and I think have a gut understanding of the patience required to persevere against grassroots sociopathy. It isnt’ like fighting Hitler. It’s like fighting a million Tim McVeighs. Big difference.

  153. 153
    AlphaOmega says:

    Hey darrel do you know even how saddam came to be and where the weapons came from.

  154. 154
    AlphaOmega says:

    Let me break it down for ya…

    In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam’s Ba’ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq’s secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA’s close friends in Iraq.

  155. 155
    Darrell says:

    Nash wrote:

    You will find those words in various places, but not linked in the bastardized fashion you’ve just put in my mouth

    No need to “bastaerdize” your words Nash, quoting you directly is what I’ve done. Nash wrote:

    It wasn’t right when your side (and I mean the wider your side, not necessarily the John Cole your side) attacked us for disagreeing with President Bush and for discussing his opinions and possible motivations and even for using heated rhetoric

    Let’s see here… The right “attacked” your side simply for “disagreeing” with Bush is what you say.. not because your side was screaming “Bush lied” and “war for oil” or anything like that, right? According to you, those eevil Repubs attacked your side simply for disagreeing.. so therefore any unfairness coming from your side is more or less justified. Isn’t that exactly what you were saying?

  156. 156
    AlphaOmega says:

    What say you…

  157. 157
    AlphaOmega says:

    Hey darrel did you hear McCain today say he still has no confidence in Rumsfeld… Try to respond without calling McCain a name or saying he is a lefty. HE VOTED AND SPOKE IN FAVOR OF BUSH AT THE RNC CONVENTION.

    They screwed it all up no matter the reason going in so try wrapping your noodle around that

  158. 158
    Mike says:

    “Neo-Progressive Says:
    Alpha-Omega,

    “The righties love playing the victim that too is getting very tiring guys…”

    You are correct, the righties are a bunch of whiners addicted to free lunches. They whine about taxes but they are happy to freeload on the taxpayer for services and infrastructure.

    Just look at the religious right. Nobody forces their women to have abortions, nobody forces them to marry gays, and no one ever stands at the entry of their churches to prevent them from worshipping. Yet, they whine and get outraged if the rest of the world does not think like them. They are free to exercise their right to free speech but want to deny it to anyone else. Who’s harassing who here?”

    God…
    You can tell that the Fall Semester is starting back up.

  159. 159
    Darrell says:

    Hey darrel do you know even how saddam came to be and where the weapons came from.

    No Alpha, tell us who “put Saddam into power”. Oh, and regarding where his weapons came from, the answer is here

  160. 160
    Mike says:

    “And your point is? You still have not made it. I strongly suspect that, as a nazi, you are definitely NOT interested in an honest discussion.”

    Ah, so now he’s started calling folks a nazi.
    All from the safety of cowering behind his keyboard that his mom bought him.

  161. 161
    AlphaOmega says:

    In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam’s Ba’ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq’s secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA’s close friends in Iraq.

  162. 162
    AlphaOmega says:

    Hey mike shouldn’t you be in IRAQ or are you cowering behind the keyboard you stole from your daughter!

  163. 163
    Nash says:

    Darrell,

    Post the entire paragraph that that line you pulled from is in.

  164. 164
    Nash says:

    My bad, of course I meant to say

    Darrell you fuckwit,

    Post the entire paragraph that that line you pulled from is in.

  165. 165
    Darrell says:

    Alphao, explain why past support of Saddam, no matter how little or how much.. why that should stop us from doing the right thing now? You leftists bring up this point, usually with lying claims that the US was some major supplier of weapons to Saddam’s regime.. but you never explain why any past support should stop us now.

    Can you imagine using AlphaOmega’s logic during the cold war? How could we ever have opposed Stalin after we allied ourselves with him in WWII to defeat Hitler? Behold the jackass logic of the left

  166. 166
    mere mortal says:

    “Among the many other things I have learned from my so-called friends this week, along with the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to truncate, distort, and misrepresent whatever someone has said, as long as you are on the side of the Righteous®”

    This is hilarious.

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

    How can Mr. Cole possibly square his criticism above with his own slanderous use of that same tactic?

    Mr. Cole will require honesty and accuracy of others, but not of himself. Sad, really.

  167. 167
    Darrell says:

    Nash Says:

    My bad, of course I meant to say

    Darrell you fuckwit,

    Post the entire paragraph that that line you pulled from is in.

    Uh Nash, if you think I quoted you out of context (I didn’t), then post it yourself with an explanation. Looks to me like you’re trying to weasel out of what you actually wrote.. First you claim that I “bastardized” your words, then when I provide a verbatim quote from you, you then dishonestly suggest that I took the quote out of context. It’s who you are

  168. 168
    Nash says:

    Darrell, we’re waiting for you to post the entire paragraph, and not the out-of-context sentence you lifted to make your false point. Every other reader here knows you are once again proven the same liar who claimed no Republican ever called any Democrat a traitor and was shown to be wrong.

    Otherwise, I might have a John Cole-esque hissy that I or a loved one of mine is being poorly treated by being poorly quoted. You wouldn’t want that on your hands would you?

  169. 169
    Nash says:

    Darrell, you are a first class asshole.

    Nash Says:

    John Cole: And if I have learned anything this weekend, it is that despite the fact that I disagree with Cindy Sheehan, because she lost her son, none of us are allowed to discuss her political opinions. They are, in the new political climate, simply known facts.

    Nash: What is actually, truly and probably sinfully enjoyable about this is that while you are exactly and precisely correct in this, many people enjoy seeing you (the wider you, not necessarily the John Cole you) get such a delicious comeuppance of the Minifer style. It’s the beauty of seeing the nastiness and unfairness of the political subject-verb-object of the past few years turned on its head. It isn’t right that people are being attacked for disagreeing with Cindy Sheehan and for discussing her opinions and possible motivations and even for using heated rhetoric. It wasn’t right when your side (and I mean the wider your side, not necessarily the John Cole your side) attacked us for disagreeing with President Bush and for discussing his opinions and possible motivations and even for using heated rhetoric. You may or may not be honest enough to admit that without even trying to provide an excuse. Almost no one else on your side, however, is even close to capable of admitting that you are just getting shat on unfairly in the exact same way you shat on others before.

    You are an object lesson and you are being made an example of, totally unfairly. All the more appropriate that it’s unfair, karma-wise. I say keep complaining, if you wish, but at least understand how much enjoyment those of us who stung under the cheap way you framed the debate felt before—before the boot was on the other kicking foot. Your identification with the other side may have tapered somewhat, but I don’t think you should be shocked that some people have long memories and grudges to nurse. Complain away all you want, but don’t even pretend to be surprised.

    That would be me saying over and over again that what the left is doing to the right is unfair, what the right is doing the left is unfair, deal with it.

    That would be you either misunderstanding because your stupid or intentionally taking that one sentence out of context because you are evil. Which is it?

  170. 170
    Nash says:

    I apologize and take that back, Darrell. A simple suggestion, honestly meant. Read slower, then ask.

  171. 171
    Darrell says:

    Nash wrote:

    Every other reader here knows you are once again proven the same liar who claimed no Republican ever called any Democrat a traitor and was shown to be wrong.

    Uh, speaking of lying sacks of sh*t, can you be so kind as to point me and other readers to where I ever claimed that “no Republican ever called any Democrat a traitor”?

    Since you appear to be such a stickler for details and context, I’m sure you’ll have no problem producing that quote of mine.. right Nash?

  172. 172
    Nash says:

    BTW, I don’t weasel, I apologize when I’m wrong or have erred. Is that a foreign construct for you?

    I was wrong to call you possibly evil and I apologize.
    I was not wrong that you took me out of context and misrepresented what I was saying, intentionally or not. Is there an honest bone in your body?

  173. 173
    Nash says:

    Uh, speaking of lying sacks of sh*t, can you be so kind as to point me and other readers to where I ever claimed that “no Republican ever called any Democrat a traitor”?

    Since you appear to be such a stickler for details and context, I’m sure you’ll have no problem producing that quote of mine.. right Nash?

    Glad too, Darrell

    Darrell Says:

    So remind us again Nash, which Republicans have called Dems “traitors”?? Please be specific, because we know that you honest well-intentioned lefties would never lie your asses off or anything like that.

    That’s a statement (in the form of a challenge) by you that it has never happened.

  174. 174
    Darrell says:

    Nash wrote:

    That would be me saying over and over again that what the left is doing to the right is unfair, what the right is doing the left is unfair, deal with it.

    I stand by my interpretation of what you said. Anyone can read for themself what you wrote. Your wording was quite clear. You were in point of fact justifying the ‘unfairness’ of the left’s behavior, because, according to you, your side was responding to “attacks” by the right simply because the left had “disagreed” with President Bush

    I then reasonably pointed out that the left wasn’t being attacked by the right simply because of an honest disagreement, but because so many on the left had chosen the lowlife path of “Bush lied, people died”, “war for oil” and the rest of their hateful smears. THAT is why the left was attacked, not because they simply had an honest disagreement with Bush. What’s so ‘evil’ about pointing that out?

  175. 175
    Neo-Progressive says:

    Mike Says:

    ‘“And your point is? You still have not made it. I strongly suspect that, as a nazi, you are definitely NOT interested in an honest discussion.”

    Ah, so now he’s started calling folks a nazi.
    All from the safety of cowering behind his keyboard that his mom bought him.”

    And where are you? Cowering behind the keyboard that your Mom bought for you, instead of putting your money where your mouth is, and go to Iraq, chickenhawk?

    And, by the way, the “he” is a “she”, meaningfully employed and able to pay her bills… I am not a freeloader like you people from the Red States who are on the dole, subsidized by the Blue States’ hard-earned, liberal,tax money…

  176. 176
    kevin lyda, co. galway says:

    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?®:

    i’m curious about one of your comments there – is there something wrong with never having heard from me before? are you saying that i’m not enough of a media whore?

    There you go. That is Why Are We In Iraq?®. I don’t believe it for a minute.

    wow.

    i thought i was going to get an answer. maybe not one i’d agree with, but at least an answer. some guy in the last thread at least had the balls to say “freedom and democracy.” i don’t agree – and it doesn’t seem like some bush officials do either – but at least he had enough belief.

    you don’t have the guts to answer a simple question. “why are we in iraq?” you can’t give a reasoned, intelligent answer to that question. you’re too afraid to publish why because you either don’t know or because you don’t want to be shown to fall for yet another lie.

    truly pathetic.

  177. 177
    Neo-Progressive says:

    Hey Nash,

    Don’t apologize. The righties do not have an honest bone in their body. Nor do they know anything about intellectual honesty. After all, these are the people who are supporting an Administration that has lied repeatedly about the reasons to go to war with Iraq, and the people who support the torture of prisoners. Of course, their brain is too small to figure out that, by condoning torture, they are putting our troops at greater risk of being tortured if they are captured. It also says a lot about their lack of moral standards… But, hey, fascists never had moral standards: just think about Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet.

    Don’t be fooled. The righties would very much like to be able to “disappear” people who do not agree with them. They are all for dictatorship, martial law, and goose-stepping. They are the REAL traitors to the American way of life and the biggest threat to democracy in the world.

  178. 178
    ppGaz says:

    They are the REAL traitors to the American way of life and the biggest threat to democracy in the world.

    Hyperbole is good for the blood pressure, but not helpful here.

    The “biggest threat to democracy in the world” is radical fundamentalism, regardless of where it comes from. RF is not compatible with liberal democracy.

  179. 179
    AlphaOmega says:

    Darrel you ingnorant slut I didn’t say anything about just because we put in power and armed him that we don’t have a right to do something about it if necessary.

    You are very misguided and we are trying to help you out here since your republican talking points mean nothing anymore. Please extrapulate your head from your ass and get a clue.

  180. 180
    AlphaOmega says:

    Anbody catch Frank Rich’s column today. Good Stuff…

  181. 181
    Neo-Progressive says:

    “The “biggest threat to democracy in the world” is radical fundamentalism, regardless of where it comes from. RF is not compatible with liberal democracy.”

    “Fundamentalism”? Gee! I thought advocating democracy was the motto of the Republicans? Since when is opposing dictatorial behavior fundamentalism? When it comes from people who do not espouse fascist ideology? Oh! By the way, opposing fascism does not automatically mean that people are leftists. But, of course, given that the current “leadership” of this country wallows in crass ignorance, stupidity, soundbites, and mediocrity, the notion of “nuance” is totally lost on the righties.

  182. 182
    AlphaOmega says:

    Does anyone know why the troops that the repubs say they support still don’t have the proper armor?? WTF Someone needs to go and NOW. This is absolutely rediculous.

    Darrel or anyone of you others on that side at all pissed that our troops aren’t properly equiped???

    Bueler, Bueler, Bueler

  183. 183
    AlphaOmega says:

    George bush couldn’t carry Bubba’s jock strap…

  184. 184
    ppGaz says:

    the notion of “nuance” is totally lost on the righties.

    True enough. But there is nothing “nuanced” about radical fundamentalism. People who are eager to turn themselves into human bombs are not going to be persuaded by political or military remedies. Sooner or later, the “righties” are either going to have to admit that they have no clue, or else the rest of the people will decide that for them. The latter is already under way.

  185. 185
    Neo-Progressive says:

    AloaOmega,

    “Darrel you ingnorant slut I didn’t say anything about just because we put in power and armed him that we don’t have a right to do something about it if necessary.

    You are very misguided and we are trying to help you out here since your republican talking points mean nothing anymore. Please extrapulate your head from your ass and get a clue.”

    Darrell is not a slut. He is just an ignorant, uneducated, intellectual zero. He does not have any critical faculties, so he accepts any ridiculous soundbite that Fox News feeds him. Don’t you realize that since Bush was put on the throne by the Supreme Court, this country has been run by grunting cavemen? Darrell deserves pity.

  186. 186
    Neo-Progressive says:

    AloaOmega,

    “Darrel you ingnorant slut I didn’t say anything about just because we put in power and armed him that we don’t have a right to do something about it if necessary.

    You are very misguided and we are trying to help you out here since your republican talking points mean nothing anymore. Please extrapulate your head from your ass and get a clue.”

    Darrell is not a slut. He is just an ignorant, uneducated, intellectual zero. He does not have any critical faculties, so he accepts any ridiculous soundbite that Fox News feeds him. Don’t you realize that since Bush was put on the throne by the Supreme Court, this country has been run by grunting cavemen? Darrell deserves pity.

  187. 187
    Darrell says:

    Alpha wrote:

    Don’t be fooled. The righties would very much like to be able to “disappear” people who do not agree with them.

    C’mon man, get a grip.. and a clue. Where did this kook come from?

  188. 188
    Darrell says:

    whoops, sorry, that quote above in my previous post should have been attrituted to “Neo-progressive”, not Alpha

  189. 189
    Neo-Progressive says:

    ‘True enough. But there is nothing “nuanced” about radical fundamentalism. People who are eager to turn themselves into human bombs are not going to be persuaded by political or military remedies. Sooner or later, the “righties” are either going to have to admit that they have no clue, or else the rest of the people will decide that for them. The latter is already under way.”

    I was responding to the accusation of “fundamentalism” when I wrote that fascist behavior is a real threat to democracy and American values. This should be obvious.

    Equally obvious should be acts of terrorism. I, however, maintain that the righties have been exercising terrorism against the American people. Since the disastrous decision of the Supreme Court to enthrone Bush in 2000, the Administration and the Republicans have run a gigantic deficit, have made the nation totally dependent on East Asian countries financially, have helped corporate America poison our environment, have curtailed our civil liberties, muzzled the press, dragged us into a war of choice not of necessity, helped religious bigots to run our lives, and guess what? The taxpayer is going to pay for this incompetence, hubris, and profligacy for the next twenty years at least.

  190. 190
    Neo-Progressive says:

    “Alpha wrote:

    Don’t be fooled. The righties would very much like to be able to “disappear” people who do not agree with them.

    C’mon man, get a grip.. and a clue. Where did this kook come from?’

    Get a brain, Darrell, you sorely need it.

  191. 191
    ppGaz says:

    The taxpayer is going to pay for this incompetence, hubris, and profligacy for the next twenty years at least.

    Preaching to the choir. However, that doesn’t make it “terrorism”.

  192. 192
    Darrell says:

    N-P wrote:

    People who are eager to turn themselves into human bombs are not going to be persuaded by political or military remedies

    Tell us then NP, how are we to deal with those eager to turn themselves into human bombs if “military remedies” are off the table? Because if military remedies were such worthless options, then I presume you also opposed the military remedies which were used in Afghanistan against Al-Quaida and Taliban fundamentalists.. Tell us what we should have done differently

  193. 193
    AlphaOmega says:

    Darrel say your sorry now come on…

  194. 194
    Neo-Progressive says:

    “ppGaz Says:

    The taxpayer is going to pay for this incompetence, hubris, and profligacy for the next twenty years at least.

    Preaching to the choir. However, that doesn’t make it “terrorism”.

    No? The whole nation is hostage to bad policies that will affect the next generations. The debacle in Iraq, the gigantic deficit, the U.S.’ dependence on foreign lenders to sustain our deficits, an economy that has been consistently failing to produce increasing income for its workers, the torture scandals which tarnished our image and credibility abroad, the recess appointment of the least-suited man to be our representative at the U.N., the outrageous intrusion in people’s lives that the Terry Schiavo affair highlighted, the religious right efforts to rule our lives through influencing judicial appointments… Need I go on?

    The Bush Administration has clearly gone on a rampage. And it is keeping it up.

    So, as an American, I feel hijacked. So, yes, I stand by my statement that the Bush Administration has been practising terrorism.

  195. 195
    Neo-Progressive says:

    “ppGaz Says:

    The taxpayer is going to pay for this incompetence, hubris, and profligacy for the next twenty years at least.

    Preaching to the choir. However, that doesn’t make it “terrorism”.

    No? The whole nation is hostage to bad policies that will affect the next generations. The debacle in Iraq, the gigantic deficit, the U.S.’ dependence on foreign lenders to sustain our deficits, an economy that has been consistently failing to produce increasing income for its workers, the torture scandals which tarnished our image and credibility abroad, the recess appointment of the least-suited man to be our representative at the U.N., the outrageous intrusion in people’s lives that the Terry Schiavo affair highlighted, the religious right efforts to rule our lives through influencing judicial appointments… Need I go on?

    The Bush Administration has clearly gone on a rampage. And it is keeping it up.

    So, as an American, I feel hijacked. So, yes, I stand by my statement that the Bush Administration has been practising terrorism.

  196. 196
    ppGaz says:

    The taxpayer is going to pay for this incompetence, hubris, and profligacy for the next twenty years at least.

    Preaching to the choir. However, that doesn’t make it “terrorism”.

    No?

    No.

  197. 197
    Pandagon says:

    Why Are We In Iraq?

    Asking that question apparently immediately gets me on John Cole’s shit list, but it’s a very important one, regardless of what you think of the answer. Cole answers it largely by the solutions of process – we’re in Iraq because…

  198. 198
    Bob says:

    I went through this post trying to find out what John’s reason is for us being in Iraq. He attacked various positions from the left, but when it comes down to it, he’s not clinging to: 1.) WMDs, 2.) Saddam is a bad man, 3.) bringing democracy, 4.) attracting all the bad guys for the big smackdown in Baghdad.

    So,

    what’s the reason we are in Iraq, if not to control the oil?

  199. 199
    Amanda says:

    Dig that hole deeper and deeper. And don’t forget to keep crying and whining, John. Damn, this entire display is pathetic. If I were you, I would just pretend I didn’t write an entire post claiming the woman couldn’t think for herself and move onto other things. Don’t keep gnawing at it. Neither you nor the Shrub has an answer for her and whining that she’s a meanie isn’t going to change it. Quit playing the hysterical female card, because people aren’t buying it this time. No one is going to swallow that lie, that a woman who is in grief because her child has died needlessly is just some hysterical woman who needs to be slapped into place. I know it’s worked for you before. I can’t conceal my glee that people are seeing through that bullshit now.

  200. 200
    Mike says:

    “AlphaOmega Says:
    Hey mike shouldn’t you be in IRAQ or are you cowering behind the keyboard you stole from your daughter!”

    I’ve been in the military, Navy actually. Many years ago, probably before you were born.
    How about you?
    And does this mean that we we have a war you actually agree with, you’ll be first in line at the Recruiting Station?

  201. 201
    John Cole says:

    Hey Amanda- I knew if anyone could find a laughably pathetic ‘Sheehan as patriarchal victim angle,’it would be you. Too bad it was her son that died, and not a daughter, because then you could have really posted a lot of stupid shit.

    Here is a little something for you.

    BTW- You get time to read that ‘sexist’ study yet? Or is the thought of actually having to know a little about something before commenting still scaring the shit out of you?

  202. 202
    Jeff G says:

    Amanda —

    READ. HER. STATEMENTS.

    Sure, she’s grieving. But she’s also a political operative who has used the occasion of her son’s death to publicize her cause.

    People like YOU have made her off limits, because people like YOU seem to think she can’t be anything other than a grieving woman.

    THAT is sexist.

    PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSOR!

  203. 203
    Jeff G says:

    WHY DO YOU WORSHIP THE PENIS, AMANDA?

  204. 204
    Mike says:

    Neo-Progressive Says:

    “And where are you? Cowering behind the keyboard that your Mom bought for you, instead of putting your money where your mouth is, and go to Iraq, chickenhawk?”

    My Mom’s 70, her days of buying me stuff are long over. Going to Iraq could be a problem. Having a wife that’s blind can do that to ya. Besides, I did my time quite a few years ago in the Navy, I doubt they’d take me now. I do them more good working back here creating all those nasty weapons you hear so much about on the news.

    “And, by the way, the “he” is a “she”, meaningfully employed and able to pay her bills… I am not a freeloader like you people from the Red States who are on the dole, subsidized by the Blue States’ hard-earned, liberal,tax money…”

    Woe… Date much?
    I’d think the shrillness could be an issue.
    Yep,that’s me alright. Everytime I see how much in taxes the Feds. take from my six-figure income I say, “gosh, I sure am grateful those kind folks in the Blue States look out for me. They’re just so swell to be subsidizing me. ” Thanks for the bucks though, we’ll reward you by continuing to trivialize you and elect future Presidents you can’t stand, at least until you move to Canada. :)

    Anyway, that’s enough silliness. But you really shouldn’t go around calling people you don’t know Nazis and Terrorists. It’s not polite. You also shouldn’t argue with PPgaz. Though perhaps a bit strident at times, he comes across as a pretty reasonable, intelligent and honest Lib. I’d suggest you may wish to follow his lead on most things since he probably shares your ideology.

  205. 205

    Quit playing the hysterical female card, because people aren’t buying it this time.

    I agree Amanda. So stop selling, okay?

  206. 206
    noninnocent bystander says:

    The reason so many people are asking the question “Why Are we in Iraq?”
    is that the reasons, the many reasons, that we the public have been given;
    Don’t Add Up.

    The rationale for military action in Afghanistan was quite comprehensible to most americans. The rationale for action in Iraq was much less so, and we now know that much of it was based on dubious if not outright fabricated intelligence. So rational Americans have to think that on the subject of Iraq, the president and his policy makers are either liars or delusional.

    As for staying in Iraq, there is a term that encapsulates the reasons we are being given, that term is ‘the sunk money fallacy’.

    As a gesture toward being constructive; here’s my solution to the mess.

    Negotiate a 3-way partition, let the Kurds and the Shiites have their own territories, make an effort to ensure the partitioned territories have their border defense in hand, and that no side has an overwhelming advantage. And then Get The Hell Out. Recognize the Kurds and the Sunnis, and get Iran to agree to manage the reconstruction of the Shiite Quarter (they would anyway).

    It’s not ideal, but it does leave a stable situation; if we need some blood on the way out someone can shoot Saddam and claim he was escaping.

  207. 207
    kevin lyda, co. galway says:

    so…

    why are we in iraq?

  208. 208
    Owen says:

    “If Casey Sheehan hadn’t been the patriot he was, he would still be alive.”

    Are you suggesting that the Bush twins aren’t patriotic? That YOU are patriotic?

    Quick… slap you on FOX News to be embarassed! NOW! QUICK!

    *ahem*

    You still haven’t really said why the US in in Iraq yet.

  209. 209
    Dumbo says:

    What a terrific non-answer. Somehow, I expected better.

    I can give you real examples of answers for why we are there. They are mostly non-operational anymore, but they provide you with better templates.

    1. We have to disarm Saddam before we have a mushroom cloud.
    2. We have to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.
    3. We have to spread freedom in the Middle East.
    4. We have to have bases in the Middle East since Saudi Arabia is kicking us out.
    5. We have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.
    6. Saddam is the most evil man in history.
    7. We are fulfilling biblical prophecy.

    I think that’s all easily penetrated bullshit. In fact, it’s so embarassing that you didn’t bother to try any of them. But those are examples of REASONS. What you gave us was a big hands up in the air, “What the fuck, so we’re already there, aren’t we?”

    When Allied troops prepared for the amphibious landing on D-Day, if you had asked the troops, why are you being sent into such a godawful bloody battle, they probably could have answered you with a reason. “To drive those awful Nazis out of France. To gut that bastard Hitler. To restore freedom to Europe. To defend America. To cut off Japanese. To stop the killing of innocents.” I’m not sure what the most popular answer would have been, but it might have been one of those. It was good enough for men to charge open beaches covered by machine guns.

    So, give us a real answer. “Why are we in Iraq?” My nephew is on his way there. Let me know a real reason that will satisfy my family if he comes back in a coffin. Don’t wuss out and make up straw-man lefty arguments.

  210. 210
    MisterPundit says:

    why are we in iraq?

    Actually, some of us are in Canada.

  211. 211
    KillCon2005 says:

    Fuck moderation.

  212. 212

    John Cole thinks that because he disagrees with Cindy Sheehan, he’s not allowed to question her views. That’s far from the truth.

    More … here

  213. 213

    […] We will begin with the question of why the left has chosen this woman as a symbol for the anti-war movement. One suspects that Ms. Sheehan has been embraced by the left not because she is a victim of the war but because she shares their politics. Were she merely a mother who felt sorrow after losing a son in battle, she would be profiled in the media and perhaps discussed on blogs, but soon her celebrity would pass. What makes Sheehan popular is that her grief — which is sincere and unfathomable to those who have not lost a son or daughter in similar circumstances — has been attached to a portfolio of left-wing talking points, which range from dubious (Bush should send his daughters to war), to odious (Bush stole two elections and should be impeached), to obscene (the war in Iraq was engineered by a neocon cabal to benefit Israel). […]

  214. 214
    zogby2004 says:

    All very interesting Mr. Cole, but you still didn’t answer the question: Why are we in Iraq?

  215. 215
    zogby2004 says:

    Actually, I still believe you got it right in the answer you mockingly quoted at the top. Occam’s razor and all:

    Why Are We In Iraq?
    … The point of this attack was to secure oil fields, enrich Halliburton with public treasure, and to fight a war for Israel.

  216. 216
    CS Lewis Jr says:

    “Smear Tom DeLay?”

    ha ha

    that’s rich

    I’m guessing Nixon and Kissinger were sadly misunderstood victims of the Godless liberal media as well?

    Reading comments like that helps me understand why modern GOP administrations are always such a disaster: They think reality is for people whose ideological commitment is weak. Then they fuck up the country, steal all the money and let the Democrats clean up their mess. It would almost be comical if it wasn’t *my* country too. As it is, I wish they would stick to blowing up frogs.

  217. 217
    Jack Roy says:

    The point of this attack was to secure oil fields, enrich Halliburton with public treasure, and to fight a war for Israel.

    If only. Gas prices are still high, possibly at record highs; whether or not Halliburton is richer for the endeavor, the enterprise as a whole is far costlier than anyone was led to believe and ridiculously inefficient; and there’s not a person with two eyes who believes that the Iraq war was a plus for regional security.

    Zogby 2004 has it right: Whether or not there are delusional leftists spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories, it seems rather specious to answer questions of the Administration’s faulty reasoning and lack of foresight (if not outright mendacity) with nothing more than “Well, some liberal critics are even worse.” For one thing, non-responsive. For another, they aren’t worse: The objects of your criticism do no more harm than irritate conservative bloggers. The Administration’s mess-up has cost how many billions? How many U.S. GIs are dead now, and how many maimed? Don’t you think it’s troubling that for this cost we have paid, we still don’t have an articulable reason for why we’re there in the first place?

  218. 218
    Darrell says:

    An ‘articulable reason’, is that really what you’re looking for Jack? There was a year long debate before invading Iraq, with at least a dozen justifications given.. that debate resulted in an overwhelming majority in Congress voting to give authorization to use military force in Iraq. So now after all the public debate and the congressional approvals, now you’re telling us ‘no reasons were given’ why we went in the first place… And you wonder why John Cole’s “Why are we in Iraq” explanation mocks you kooks. Because you really are irrational kooks. It’s how you really think

  219. 219
    CS Lewis Jr says:

    “at least a dozen justifications given”

    …all of which turned out to be premeditated bullshit.

    But never mind that. That’s good enough for me!

    Cheney/Cthulhu in 2008!

  220. 220
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Hefty doses of DougJ AND Darrell? Wow, it’s like I’ve wandered into StupidCon 2005. By the way, you guys, how do you manage to type with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears? That’s gotta be a neat trick.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] We will begin with the question of why the left has chosen this woman as a symbol for the anti-war movement. One suspects that Ms. Sheehan has been embraced by the left not because she is a victim of the war but because she shares their politics. Were she merely a mother who felt sorrow after losing a son in battle, she would be profiled in the media and perhaps discussed on blogs, but soon her celebrity would pass. What makes Sheehan popular is that her grief — which is sincere and unfathomable to those who have not lost a son or daughter in similar circumstances — has been attached to a portfolio of left-wing talking points, which range from dubious (Bush should send his daughters to war), to odious (Bush stole two elections and should be impeached), to obscene (the war in Iraq was engineered by a neocon cabal to benefit Israel). […]

  2. Pandagon says:

    Why Are We In Iraq?

    Asking that question apparently immediately gets me on John Cole’s shit list, but it’s a very important one, regardless of what you think of the answer. Cole answers it largely by the solutions of process – we’re in Iraq because…

  3. […] No, what irks me is something far more petty than all those things–she calls the president George (HT: John Cole, who has an excellent post today about the Sheehan matter). Just George. Not George Bush, or President Bush, or Dubya, or even Curious George. Just plain George. […]

  4. High Noon For George Bush And Cindy Sheehan

    It’s High Noon for George Bush and Cindy Sheehan.

    Sauntering down one side of the stree…

Comments are closed.