Skip to main content.

August 30th, 2005

Stormtroopers Attack!!!

Here’s the situation in brief. On a blog titled ‘Right Thinking from the Left Coast’, the moderator Lee has this thing he does where he’ll post something on a breaking story…in this instance it’s Cindy Sheehan. Now, he’ll first write that we should all be fair to her, etc. Then he’ll proceed to post links to sites like ‘Moorewatch’ tearing her to pieces.

When someone like me points out the tactic, he gets ultra-defensive and bans me from the site. Say one thing and do another…a time honored American tradition. One that for people who engage in such two-faced behavior, is really difficult to face when caught red handed.

Fair to Cindy Sheehan? How about the two anti-Sheehan posts to ‘hopefully’ get the smear-cycle rolling before the markets even open on Monday?

Oh, I have violated an unspoken rule…so these people are doing the only thing they know how to do. Smear feces all over the walls until you can’t stand the stench anymore and leave.

We’ve got a dialogue going on this now, so I’m shifting gears on this post. The titles were something like, “nailing herself to a cross” and “braindead mothers”…braindead may be Cindy referring to other mothers who support the war, but it’s a moot point. The reality is there was a disagreement. I’m not wanted at Right Thinking from the Left Coast…I hope to be able to pick up the pieces and carry on somehow. I don’t know, I may need some therapy and medication to get over it.

One less dissenting opinion in the right-wing section of the blogsphere. All are welcome here…as long as the language is clean, no insults and no trolls.

Posted by Al Swearengen in Words

50 Comments »

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 30th, 2005 at 1:53 am and is filed under Words. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

50 Responses to “Stormtroopers Attack!!!”

  1. Lee says:

    Here’s one of those attack posts over at MOOREWATCH.

    I just want to throw in my $0.02 about some of the things I’ve read about Cindy Sheehan from the commenters and posters at various forums, blogs, and websites, including both Right-Thinking and MOOREWATCH. I’m not singling out anyone, or any particular comment, or any particular thread, so if you read this and get a guilty conscience, then that’s something for you to think about.

    I’ve been pretty disgusted with some of the vitriolic commentary I’ve read over the past few days regarding Cindy. Before I go into my thoughts on those comments, allow me to share with you my own opinions of her. She’s obviously someone who loved her son deeply, and her life has been destroyed by his death. Anyone who has a child can only begin to imagine the sense of loss she felt when the news of Casey’s death reached her. I think her sense of loss was compounded exponentially by the fact that she never supported her son’s decision to join the military in the first place, nor his decision to reenlist and serve in Iraq, and she certainly has never been a fan of President Bush. Imagine if one of your kids, who you had tried to raise as a regular, patriotic American, ran off to live in some kind of deranged anti-American hippie commune, where he ended up taking his own life as a protest against capitalism. Wouldn’t you feel some degree of resentment towards the foreign belief system that sucked him in? Of course you would, to do otherwise would be to deny human nature. So not only did Cindy Sheehan lose her son, but she lost him to something she didn’t believe in, something that she as a mother couldn’t protect him from. It’s hard enough for some overly protective parents when their children go away to college; Cindy lost hers to the military, and the military eventually took him from her forever. Imagine the pain for a second.

    Many people, after suffering a terrible loss, channel that loss into something positive. John Walsh, for example, lost his son Adam to a serial killer. A great many of the laws and police procedures regarding child abductions that are in place today are there because of his tireless efforts, to say nothing of almost two decades of America’s Most Wanted, which has resulted in over 800 fugitives caught and off the streets. During WWII, when the five Sullivan brothers were killed in a single day of action, their parents immediately became national symbols of the necessity of sacrifice in defeating Hitler’s evil. They went out and spoke on behalf of the war effort, encouraging families to buy war bonds and plant liberty gardens. Only after the war was over did they fade from public life and grieve for their sons. Channeling grief is something people do in the face of immense loss. It’s one of our better qualities. And, for better or worse, this is exactly what Cindy Sheehan has done.

    I don’t agree with her views on the war or on Bush or probably on much of anything. She was most likely a barking moonbat before the war, and in the wake of her son’s death she has found solace in like-minded individuals on the anti-war left. Much like the War Department used the Sullivans as figureheads for their cause, so the despicable radical left is using her for theirs. Who can’t help but feel sympathy for a grieving mother? By using her in this manner it gives Michael Moore, MoveOn, and their ilk a virtually bullet-proof martyr. Anyone who dares state anything critical of her is immediately accused of attacking the mother of a dead soldier. “How low will the fascist right go to support their war for oil?”

    By holding herself out as the hood ornament for the anti-war left, Sheehan has certainly opened the door for legitimate criticism of her motives and beliefs. You won’t find anyone more supporting of that than me. But all too often I have seen a real degree of contempt for the woman creep in to what should otherwise be legitimate comments, and I think that’s absolutely fucking shameful. This woman lost her son, and while you are and should be free to discuss her recent political activism, cut the woman some slack in the other areas. I think some of the things she has said and done recently have been absolutely disgraceful and I have said as much, but I’m not going to attack the mother of a wounded soldier.

    Let me put it this way. As Jim rightfully wrote earlier today, the real focus here should be Casey and his sacrifice for a cause he believed in. That being said, this is the woman who gave birth to Casey; who breast fed him, and wiped his behind, and taught him to walk, and pinned his corsage on his prom tuxedo, and loved him for every year of his life. I have no doubt that Casey loved his mother in return. No matter how much he might have disagreed with his mother on certain political views, I don’t doubt for a second that if Casey could read some of the things that “patriotic Americans” have said about his mother he would be absolutely devastated, and were he here in person there’s a whole lot of people who would find themselves knocked on their asses by him.

    Have some fucking respect.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:05 am
  2. Drumwaster says:

    He was just “smearing” her in that post, huh, DumbAssue?

    Why not answer my question?

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:07 am
  3. Lee says:

    So, dumbassue, was that a smear? Come on, you made the assertion, now answer the question. WAS THAT A SMEAR?

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:10 am
  4. Lee says:

    Here’s another one of those “smear” posts from over at MOOREWATCH where I specifically discuss the tactic used by the left by which they brand any legitimate criticism of Cindy Sheehan as being a smear.

    Ironically, this is exactly what you have been doing all day, dumbassue, and I wrote this weeks before you showed back up and spouted off your drivel.

    ——–

    One point I have made time and time again regarding the issue of Casey Sheehan’s mother is that when we criticize her we should take the high road. Rather than simply spew mindless vitriol towards her, we should firmly attack her positions and actions, rather than go after her personally. Why is this so important? I’ll refer to what I wrote in this post.

    “I don’t agree with her views on the war or on Bush or probably on much of anything. She was most likely a barking moonbat before the war, and in the wake of her son’s death she has found solace in like-minded individuals on the anti-war left. Much like the War Department used the Sullivans as figureheads for their cause [during WWII], so the despicable radical left is using her for theirs. Who can’t help but feel sympathy for a grieving mother? By using her in this manner it gives Michael Moore, MoveOn, and their ilk a virtually bullet-proof martyr. Anyone who dares state anything critical of her is immediately accused of attacking the mother of a dead soldier.”

    Well, the latest idiocy from the folks over at Media Matters shows exactly why I was right, and why taking the moral and intellectual high ground is so damn important. They’re counting on vitriol and hatred from those of us who support the war so that they can turn Casey’s mother from barking moonbat with no grasp on reality into a poor, defenseless wallflower, bravely standing on her own against the fascist corporate junta. The Media Matters report is entitled “Conservatives, others in the media launch smear campaign against [Casey Sheehan’s mother].” I find this an interesting use of the word “campaign.” as this implies organization of some kind, as if all the disparate voices in the conservative commentariat are all emailing each other back and forth with talking points. Conversely, this is exactly what the left (and their allies in the mainstream media) are doing regarding Casey’s mother; MoveOn, Michael Moore, and the rest of their despicable ilk latched on to this woman about a year ago, and I don’t believe for a second that this well-orchestrated publicity campaign they’re waging in Crawford was the entirely brainchild of Casey’s mother.

    ——

    Go to MOOREWATCH to read the rest for yourself. Suffice it to say that I had you and your left-wing ilk pegged well before you ever bothered to show back up.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:14 am
  5. Lee says:

    Oh, I have absolutely no doubt he’ll delete these. He can’t handle actual discussion and debate.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:14 am
  6. Lee says:

    Here’s another “smear” post from over at MOOREWATCH where we specifically called a time out on discussing Cindy Sheehan while she dealt with her mother’s stroke.

    All politics aside, whaddya say we take a break from discussing Casey Sheehan’s mother while she tends to her family emergency. It’s the least any of us could hope for if the situation were reversed. I know we have a reputation for being “heartless” around here, but situations like this really do transcend petty incompatible ideologies.

    I’ll see y’all on the high road.

    So, dumbassue, was this a smear? Tell mw how, specifically.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:16 am
  7. Lee says:

    Here’s another “smear” post from MOOREWATCH where I disagreed with a television station for refusing to run a Cindy-themed issues ad.

    The issue here is that while the First Amendment guarantees Casey Sheehen’s mother the right to make her commercial, and it gives left-wing groups the right to purchase ad time to broadcast the commercial, it does not guarantee them the means to broadcast it, and no station is under any obligation to accept their money or provide them air time. Personally, as despicable as I find what Casey Sheehan’s mother is doing, I fully support her right to do it, and if the decision were mine to make I would have run their ad. The way to win people to your side is not to silence your opposition, it’s to provide a superior argument. It’s for exactly this reason that I wrote an open letter to the conservative activist group Move America Forward, requesting that they end their ultimately fruitless campaign to get theaters to refuse to screen Fahrenheit 9/11. The station is simply making a martyr out of Casey Sheehan’s mother, because by refusing to air her message it implies a sense of validity. She’s not saying anything hateful, she’s not inciting violence, or suborning the overthrow of the government, so why not let her have her say? As the old saying goes, the solution to problems arising from free speech is more free speech, not less. There isn’t a single thing that Casey Sheehen’s mother can say that can’t be logically countered, refuted, and rebutted. All she has is the rank emotional appeal of her alleged victimhood, and this only plays well with liberals, who are overemotional creatures by nature and see themselves primarily as victims of “they.”

    It’s the station’s right to refuse to broadcast her commercial, but I wonder if by doing so they aren’t throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch.

    Tell me, dumbassue, was this a smear post? How, specifically?

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:19 am
  8. Chris Austin says:

    Lee – I didn’t read that today, obviously. While I’m questioning why you booted me, I respect the fact that you posted that.

    My opinion on what you wrote is that you stood up and said something that needed to be said. I’ve read your stuff before, and obviously I wouldn’t have kept coming back if I didn’t enjoy the content.

    The beef I have with the way things went today was how it appeared that you were participating in spreading out the chum in time for the start of a new newscycle. Two posts at that hour on a Monday…as I stated above, circumstantial, but I don’t think you can have it both ways. That’s a difference of opinion obviously, but surely we disagree on a lot of things.

    When you decided to boot me from the site, it led to a barage of nitwits wasting my time with this flood of garbage comments. That’s not right.

    I’m sure if you look back at some of the threads I’ve posted on, it’s almost always me vs. the rest of the users, and I don’t ignore as much as people let on.

    Sucks that a difference of opinion had to lead to this.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:22 am
  9. Lee says:

    Admit it, DI, you’re totally talking out of your ass here. You bought into MoveOn’s bullshit talking points, and accused me of smearing a woman that in some respects I have spent the past few weeks defending. But that’s okay. Sorely the next time you go out in your car you’ll see a bumper sticker telling you what to believe.

    And I have absolutely no doubt that you’re going to delete every one of these posts like the gutless pussy we all know you to be.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:23 am
  10. Chris Austin says:

    I’ll leave up what’s legitimate/relevant to what’s going on. I won’t delete your comments.

    Funny thing is…I don’t get MoveOn.org emails as you said you did, nor do I read the stuff on DU as everyone on your site assumes I do. I get my news from the New York Times, Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal. Other than that it’s whatever Drudge and Huffington Post has linked.

    For as much of the bellyaching you’ve done about me pigeonholing your positions, I’ve got the same in return. Perhaps we both do it too often.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:28 am
  11. Chris Austin says:

    From another thread:

    Tom22 says:

    Oh, and while I’m on my high horse, the same goes for all the other claptraps. Bush lied, though there’s no proof he lied and every bit of evidence (intelligence and others opinion) indicates he didn’t lie, but Bush Lied and that’s that.

    There are plenty of valid reasons to be against the war in Iraq but “Bush Lied” isn’t one of them. it’s all the same non sense, I want things to be this way so I can base my opinion on it and it doesn’t matter if they aren’t that way I’m just going to shut that out and pretend that they are that way so I don’t have to put serious thought into the matter.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:07 am edit
    Chris Austin says:

    Tom22: You were completely wrong, you know it, and you simply won’t admit it because then Lee wouldn’t fit in the cookie cutter mold you’ve carved out for him. You just want to sit in your little corner, scream things at people, and have them take it.

    That’s crap. You can dig into the archives of Right Thinking and see for yourself. For a month or so in the beginning I refrained from even dishing out my own insults (after being insulted by several users).

    The balance shifted today because of the fact that Lee insisted on claiming the highground, yet promoted anti-Sheehan material at the same time. He wants it both ways.

    Circumstantial evidence…check the date and times of those two from yesterday. It’s ‘all in the game’ as they say in Baltimore, as everyone is aware of the concept of a ‘news cycle’. And he was caught red handed.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:07 am edit
    Tom22 says:

    Again, you don’t address the issue you just side step it so you don’t have to answer the question. Who cares that he posted two posts in one day?

    That doesn’t mean he hates Cindy Sheehan or that he’s trying to smear her. It doesn’t change the fact that he defended her before.

    Again, just more dishonesty, you don’t have an answer to the question so you try to move the ball.

    Step 1: act offended so the other side might back off.

    Step 2: try to pass the same thing you said before off as its own justification in the hopes that they’ll fall for it or just go away.

    Step 3: Go on thinking exactly what you thought at the start without even considering what anyone else has said.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:14 am edit
    Tom22 says:

    Step 4: Ignore any discussion where people figure out your tricks

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:29 am edit
    Chris Austin says:

    Tom, I’m comparing the time of those posts to a chum-line, to attract sharks. Get the ball rolling in a certain direction.

    The White House is brilliant when it comes to WHEN they release information to become ‘news’. I’m always suspicious of what comes out on a Monday morning.

    While Lee’s opinions on Sheehan may not be the worst of what’s said – the fact that he’s titling the posts ‘braindead mothers’ or ‘nailing herself to a cross’ doesn’t exactally scream compassion.

    It’s ridiculous anyway because we’re all adults here, and have disagreed with one another many times before. That it’s come to this is stupid.

    Note that I left your comments up along with Lee’s. I’m not afraid of criticism of me spilling out onto the blog at all. It’s the profanity, insults and troll stuff that I won’t allow to stay.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:40 am edit
    Tom22 says:

    So then, your point is that anyone who expresses an opinion is smearing if other people (some perhaps more vicious than the original person) join in? Seems pretty flimsy, especially coming from a man who seems to smear Karl Rove on a daily basis. How is that different?

    As far as the White House, your problem with them is they control the news cycle? Every government and big business in the history of modern media tries to control the news cycle. On the West Wing, the liberal ideal for a White House, there was a whole episode called “Take out the trash day” devoted to this (Take out the trash day is Friday because no one reads the newspaper on Saturday so you dump you undesirable stories there)

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:56 am edit
    Chris Austin says:

    Tom: So then, your point is that anyone who expresses an opinion is smearing if other people (some perhaps more vicious than the original person) join in? Seems pretty flimsy, especially coming from a man who seems to smear Karl Rove on a daily basis. How is that different?

    No, I’m not saying we shouldn’t express our opinions about Sheehan or anyone else for that matter. But let’s say I post something to the effect of…”Rove had a rough childhood and we should take it easy on him”…only to turn around and feed the beast that’s trying to tear him down.

    The righteous stance Lee took on Sheehan was admirable, but once he did that, he had to stick with it. You can’t take a stand one day and then work on the chum-line the next. The blogsphere works like a lot of news works…Lee and some other site admins know how it works. If they get some new information critical of Sheehan out there before she does something newsworthy on Monday, it makes a difference. However small that difference may be…you never know who’s reading your blog.

    Tom: As far as the White House, your problem with them is they control the news cycle? Every government and big business in the history of modern media tries to control the news cycle. On the West Wing, the liberal ideal for a White House, there was a whole episode called “Take out the trash day” devoted to this (Take out the trash day is Friday because no one reads the newspaper on Saturday so you dump you undesirable stories there)

    I don’t have a problem with that Tom…in fact, I gave them credit for how well they do it, referred to them as ‘brilliant’.

    By that same token though, the idea for a Monday is to get discussion steered in the direction you want it to go in. Large media outlets coordinate this type of stuff all the time. They hammer a specific issue on Monday, and before half the week is gone, that story has outrun others of perhaps a higher consequence.

    The blogsphere is no different. And I’ve seen Lee quoted on a couple of right-wing blogs…no doubt they coordinate at times. Did he coordinate the Monday Sheehan threads? I don’t know.

    It is quite telling though, that after all the months I’ve posted there…Lee bans me for pointing this out. He scrambled to dig up a thread where I disappeared, but I steered the debate back onto the oddity that was his two Sheehan threads on a Monday morning.

    It was that I pointed this out in particular, and that I brought it up again that got me banned. You don’t have to be a cop on Law and Order to realize the motive!

    August 30th, 2005 at 3:10 am edit

    August 30th, 2005 at 4:54 am
  12. Lee says:

    The balance shifted today because of the fact that Lee insisted on claiming the highground, yet promoted anti-Sheehan material at the same time. He wants it both ways.

    That is total crap. I don’t want it both ways. I have always attacked this woman’s positions and belief. That’s politics. I always urged people to take it easy on the smear attacks, telling them that her opinion should be respected. Last night, however, Jim alerted me to the fact that Casey Sheehan’s mom had gone on the record over at her Huffingpaint Blog and said, essentially, that every mother who lost a child and still supported the war was mindless and brainwashed. And that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    There is a big difference between “smearing” someone and providing a calm critique of their beliefs. I didn’t say or do anything that could be called a smear until Casey’s Mom decided to denigrate other mothers in her same position. If she is unwilling to show the same fundamental level of respect to other mothers that common decency dictates, then as far as I’m concerned all bets are off.

    If you want to call this a smear go right ahead. But a smear implies that there is a lack of evidence, or trumped-up evidence use to support the smear. I have the evidence of what she’s written and said, how is that a smear? Do you consider pointing out some of the vile, bilious dreck that she’s been spewing forth a smear?

    August 30th, 2005 at 6:18 am
  13. Chris Austin says:

    How can anyone, anyone in their right minds support this line of reasoning? I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves. Iraq DID NOT have WMD; Iraq WAS NOT linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11; Iraq WAS NOT a threat or danger to America. How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don’t understand it. I don’t understand how any mother could want another mother to feel the pain we feel. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these “continue the murder and mayhem” moms to see the light.

    Source

    She posted this on Saturday, and you just happened to be alerted to it in time to post before dawn on a Monday. The net and blogsphere move a lot faster than that, and in terms of a strategic time to comment on this – Monday morning would be the best. So it’s suspicious in that way, and I thought of it that way from the start.

    The President stated a reason for ’staying the course’ was to honor those who have already fallen. This reasoning implies that since so many have been killed or wounded, there is no point or series of events that would cause him to think twice about this…he puts it on THEM, the ones who have already paid the ultimate price.

    Talk about strategy, politics, the key to defeating the enemy…but he says we must keep fighting because of our own dead, and an over-optomistic idea of what Iraq will be once we actually do leave.

    This justification offended me and it obviously offended Sheehan. The evidence we went to war on was wrong, and the enemy hasn’t let up an inch…in fact it seems to have increased in numbers and effectiveness steadily since we first invaded. The politics involved in establishing government rule that will actually work over there is going to take a very long time.

    We broke it…pottery barn rule states, we buy it. We buy it because of mistakes…not because of how many of our people have been killed already.

    She claims we’ve all been brainwashed and it’s time for the parents of those who have died to wake up and recognize the facts surrounding this entire thing. If the war is worth fighting and it’s one WE CAN ACTUALLY WIN, then it should be something tangible.

    The reasoning for it should be something you can pick up, read and it makes sense. Saying we need to continue fighting for the sake of those who have died sounds to me like he’s still making it up as he goes along. And that doesn’t bode well for anyone in uniform today.

    She’s accusing the Gold Star Moms of blind patriotism basically, and I can’t help but think that’s the case. If a Republican is President and he goes to war, there will be a portion of people in our society who will trust him 100% regardless of what happens.

    As a mother, she can’t wrap her head around how that could be. Lee, you were so compassionate when writing to her up above, but HERE is where you draw the line?

    Sounds to me like you were waiting for an excuse to flip on her, and one appeared over the weekend. Your readers aren’t going to dig and question your reasoning or motives…well, now that I’m not one of them they won’t.

    You could have said this on Right Thinking FTLC, but instead launched into an insult ridden tirade and started threatening to boot me. I think we did have good debates in the past, but on this day you went postal. Maybe it was the day I stoped posting in that Medical thread.

    Because the only thing I can think of right now other than you being pissed about that other thread was the fact that I hit the nail right on the head. With the stuff that people say on your site…the stuff that I’ve said, THIS was what caused you to pull the lever?

    On that same note…THIS is what caused you to turn on Sheehan? The coincidence of both…like I said earlier, you don’t have to be one of the cops from Law and Order to connect the dots.

    August 30th, 2005 at 7:26 am
  14. Drumwaster says:

    So much for a “dialogue”. You coward.

    August 30th, 2005 at 10:23 am
  15. Chris Austin says:

    Drum, I saw the insults/profanity you can’t seem to carry on a discussion without and deleted them all.

    August 30th, 2005 at 10:29 am
  16. Karl says:

    WOW:

    I remember a while back I told Chris he needed a few trolls to spice up the place, I was wrong.

    Take care Chris

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
  17. Karl says:

    I don’t get why the right is getting all worked over Sheehan. She raised a kid who was willing to fight and die for a cause. That is more than most the parents of campus republicans can say. She now would like the president to tell her face to face why her son died. Bush has the right not to talk to her, but she certainly has the right to keep asking.

    As for the argument that she is a pawn of Move-on, I doubt move-on is using mind control on this women, polls indicate that a lot of people agree with her, and almost everyone supports her right to say what she thinks, maybe the right should learn to like free speech as it has gotten us this far.

    August 30th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
  18. Right Thinker says:

    I remember a while back I told Chris he needed a few trolls to spice up the place, I was wrong.

    You know Karl, I wish you’d shut your big YAPPER!!!! (thanks Chris Farley, SNL)

    August 30th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
  19. Right Thinker says:

    I don’t get why the right is getting all worked over Sheehan.

    The Right has been historically very patriotic and what Sheehan is doing is treason against a culture. She has betrayed her son, betrayed the truth and betrayed American way. She’s broken no laws mind you but the the exploitation of an American Hero for the express purpose of hurting America at home and abraod is the worst kind of behavior.

    Charles Manson and Ted Bundy had serious mental issues. OJ Simpson and the Barretta guy had big egos and marital problems. But Sheehan is trying to kill a way of life, a major part of our culture and a part of who we are as a society.

    She raised a kid who was willing to fight and die for a cause.

    She didn’t do that on purpose and she said if she could do it over again she would hit him with a car or take him to Canada. No somehing to be proud of and definitely not a source of pride or inspiration for Casey.

    That is more than most the parents of campus republicans can say.

    Those parents allow their adult offspring to make their own decisions. That there is a group of campus Republicans shows that these students are giving back to the community. I’d be proud if my chioldren were members of a group that helped the community and other people.

    She now would like the president to tell her face to face why her son died.

    Again?? Why is she so special to get all these meeting with the President. I’ve never met with the President even once.

    As for the argument that she is a pawn of Move-on, I doubt move-on is using mind control on this women, polls indicate that a lot of people agree with her, and almost everyone supports her right to say what she thinks, maybe the right should learn to like free speech as it has gotten us this far.

    What happens in these situations is Sheehan gives MoveOn a blank check, if you will, to manage her celebrity how ever they see fit. The Right supports her right to free speach but the Right also has the right to free speech as well so if Sheehan says or does a bunch of nutty things the Right can respond and set the record straight.

    Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just Sheehan but she is the one who chooses to incite this acrid atmosphere that surrounds her.

    August 30th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
  20. Drumwaster says:

    Why not just delete the profanity? Why can’t you answer the question?

    ***

    We both know who won last night.

    Prove me wrong. If you can.

    (I have no doubt you will STILL refuse to answer my question, even though I have not used a single profanity. You’re just like that…)

    August 30th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
  21. Chris Austin says:

    Drumwaster says:

    Why not just delete the profanity? Why can’t you answer the question?

    ***

    We both know who won last night.

    Prove me wrong. If you can.

    (I have no doubt you will STILL refuse to answer my question, even though I have not used a single profanity. You’re just like that…)

    If a question does not exist…can it be answered?

    As for the profanity, I’m not editing comments. Everyone knows the deal.

    August 30th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
  22. karl says:

    Right:

    I don’t get the emotional responses, this is just the internet it is not like it is real life. Maybe that is why these guys are so angry at Sheehan, she actually matters in real life not just cyber life.

    Moorewatch is kind of a fun site for the train wreck quality, you always know that at the end of the day Jimk is going to find himself wallowing in self pity wondering why he can’t get health insurance. I like right-thinking better as Lee seems like a rotund version of Dennis leary, angry and funny, but at the end of the day he is still a man sitting behind a keyboard spewing venom. My point is they are certainly no better than Sheehan.

    It is only a cyber world and they should lighten up and maybe certain people would not find themselves alone on Christmas.

    August 31st, 2005 at 12:22 am
  23. karl says:

    Is this guy next for the smear machine?

    Before he died when his truck overturned during combat in Baghdad, Sgt. Thomas Strickland, 27, posted an entry on his weblog sharing his anger about the situation in Iraq,” in which he questioned the United States’ ‘fucktarded’ Iraq war plan, Rogers Cadenhead reports on his site, DrudgeRetort.com.

    In a post he titled One Foot in the Grave, Strickland asked, “What kind of fucktarded plan have we been half-assedly executing?”

    Cadenhead says Strickland aspired to teach English and was a “gifted writer and poet

    August 31st, 2005 at 12:32 am
  24. Drumwaster says:

    You were asked the question many, many times last night.

    I’ll repeat it, just so you’ll have to delete it twice to hide it from your regulars.

    You claimed that you are against the war because “Bush lied”, is that right?

    So did you support him before the final ISG report came out last September (with posts able to back that up)? Or was this nothing more than yet another lame excuse to justify your “I hate Bush” mindset?

    August 31st, 2005 at 12:33 am
  25. Chris Austin says:

    To say I was against the war ONLY because Bush lied would be inaccurate. I’m against the war because it wasn’t necessary…that’s the biggest reason. Our military shouldn’t be sent into a conflict unless it’s absolutely necessary. And if that’s the case, lies won’t be necessary to convince the public.

    I believe that we helped to create the monster that Saddam was, and without outside help he wasn’t a threat to us or his neighbors.

    http://deadissue.com/archives/2004/07/08/biological-backlash/
    http://deadissue.com/archives/2004/09/24/wake-up-and-smell-the-motives/
    http://deadissue.com/archives/2005/05/16/americas-foreign-policy-filter/
    http://deadissue.com/archives/2005/05/20/operation-win-the-war/

    August 31st, 2005 at 12:48 am
  26. Drumwaster says:

    “To say I was against the war ONLY because Bush lied would be inaccurate.”

    So your claims of being so upset about “finding out that Bush lied” was nothing but lies? Since you were against the war from the beginning, I can only assume that you would have preferred that Saddam still be in power, with all of the mass murders, bribing of EUro-peon and UN officials, and support of international terrorism that came with that regime?

    If not, then perhaps you could explain the contradiction. You were either against removing Saddam under any circumstances whatsoever (since the other reasons Bush gave were proven TRUE), or you are lying now. Which is it?

    “Our military shouldn’t be sent into a conflict unless it’s absolutely necessary.”

    No, they should be brought home to stand, shoulder-to-shoulder, around the border, since that was working so well back on September 10th. I realize that complicated military tactics are a little beyond you, but defense doesn’t work in a war where the enemy forces are already “behind the lines”.

    “I believe that we helped to create the monster that Saddam was”

    Even if that were true (just for the sake of the argument), doesn’t that make it incumbent upon us to take him down again? Or should we just have wrung our hands and waited until he put together a WMD powerful enough that even you wouldn’t be able to ignore it?

    These are truly pathetic attempts at justifying your “I hate Bush” bumper-sticker mentality. I’d be embarrassed if I were you.

    August 31st, 2005 at 10:42 am
  27. Chris Austin says:

    Drumwaster, Will you please quit taking steaming shits in my mouth. Even though I like the taste of shit. Yours has the nutmeg taste of being correct.

    August 31st, 2005 at 11:29 am
  28. Drumwaster says:

    I challenge any of you who thinks that you have a legitimate reason for being against the war to come and tell us about it. We’ll see if your excuses – for that is exactly what they are, EXCUSES – stand up to the truth.

    Of course, you could hide out here, and pat yourselves on the back, and feel all smug, but that would just be too pathetic for me to even waste any insults on…

    August 31st, 2005 at 1:49 pm
  29. Drumwaster says:

    Oh, and your claim of “I don’t edit”? It’s another lie. You’ve deleted and edited and altered to suit your own tastes. You have that right (it is your site), but as a defense against actually answering questions, it smacks of nothing but cowardice. You’ve even edited this thread at least three times.

    So let’s not pretend…

    August 31st, 2005 at 1:52 pm
  30. Chris Austin says:

    Drum – you won’t see a single comment of yours altered in any way from this day forward as long as the criteria is met. You’re holding me to task for deleting comments made by yourself and others on a night where I got slammed to the tune of at least 75+ troll comments. Should I have taken the time to read every single one for the sake of not appearing like some kind of a fraud to you?

    karl, Right Thinker, Michael, Paul…anyone who’s posted comments on this site will confirm that I don’t alter comments that are posted OR delete ones that are critical of me or my ideas. The only thing I will do is blockquote, bold or italicize text when it helps the appearance/comprehension of quoted text. I don’t bold or italicize based on the content, but who said what.

    Drum…Michael and Right Thinker are both on the right side of a lot of issues and probably agree with you on a lot of things. karl and I are definitely liberal…none of us (left a few out) duck questions or get personal while debating.

    Your perception of me is from RTFTLC, and even someone as hostile towards me as you have been can appreciate the fact that most days I stoped by, it was me vs. everyone. When 6 or more people are blasting questions, comments at you all at once – some will fall through the cracks.

    If you post a question here, I will answer it…as will anyone else you pose a question to. As karl said earlier – welcome! My front page is a shooting gallery for a thinker like you.

    NEVER SCARED…THE AMERICAN WAY! HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!

    (got to keep it clean and not personal – youngin’s do lurk and we’re setting an example for someone out there – maybe it’s fatherhood, but that’s how I see it)

    August 31st, 2005 at 2:40 pm
  31. Drumwaster says:

    “NEVER SCARED…THE AMERICAN WAY! HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!”

    Funny how I’m STILL waiting for the answer to a question I have posted here multiple times. I have even “thrown down the gauntlet” to you and your readers to see if your EXCUSES about the Iraq war stand up to the facts, or if they’re just more lame excuses.

    You haven’t answered either my question or my challenge. I doubt you ever will.

    I wonder why? I would call you a “coward”, but you would delete this, and then claim to not know what it said (even though you would have had to have read it at least this far to know – which proves my point).

    August 31st, 2005 at 3:22 pm
  32. Chris Austin says:

    Drum – we’ve been down this road many times before. I have a solution…you pose your questions in the next comment, and I’ll answer them. Not a comment about how you’ve posted them already, blah blah blah…pose them again and I will answer. Deal?

    You and Lee have been saying ‘Ah, he’ll just delete this’, and I haven’t deleted a thing since the troll assault ended sometime yesterday.

    I’m a punk? Prove it to everyone here who’s reading this. Make with the questions already!

    August 31st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
  33. karl says:

    Drumwaster:

    The problem with debating an issue at either right thinking or moorewatch is, it is hard to get through all the insults and the realization that you will probably be banned at some point if you catch either Lee or Jimk on a bad day, definetly stifles conversation. Don’t get me wrong those sites are very entertaining, but I don;t think they are designed to discus issues so much as to inflame opinions.

    I have had some of my opnions changed while posting on this site and that is what open respectful debate does.

    Comparing a site like this to moorewatch is like comparing an ecomics class to Jerry springer

    August 31st, 2005 at 3:32 pm
  34. Drumwaster says:

    Reply #26, genius. Go up there and look. (I’m sure you’ll want to do some quick editing then.)

    I’ve been asking you the same questions for three frickin’ days and you keep claiming you have answered them.

    Trouble is, YOU HAVEN’T.

    August 31st, 2005 at 4:46 pm
  35. Chris Austin says:

    Thanks karl – it means a lot. While the amount of users isn’t close to those sites, the quality of our debates are top notch. Reading a dissenting opinion from Michael, Right or Paul is what it’s all about in my opinion. You can’t get half as far on the mainstream sites, because with most you’re either preaching to the choir or being called a Communist.

    The blogs really emulate the talk radio and cable news content – which sucks in my opinion.

    On Right Thinking From the Left Coast, it’s a large number of users who really don’t want someone like me around. I could care less.

    August 31st, 2005 at 4:47 pm
  36. Drumwaster says:

    The challenge none of you has bothered to answer is here.

    Color me not holding my breath.

    August 31st, 2005 at 4:58 pm
  37. Drumwaster says:

    Comparing a site like this to moorewatch is like comparing an ecomics class to Jerry springer

    Except that we’ve got facts on our side. Or do you not miss them around here? How does he keep you so distracted? Dancing girls? I mean, you claim to be guided by truth, and yet I’ve never heard your host write a single truthful senstence in ALL of his posts over at Lee’s. He is routinely smacked around by the facts on a regular basis. You here see none of that from his accounts, I’m sure, but the archives are clear. His posts are considered a standing gag, and he was actually accused of being a conservative pretending to be liberal because we didn’t even think liberals could be as out of touch as your sitehost is.

    Obviously, we were wrong, because DI is exactly that far out of touch.

    August 31st, 2005 at 5:03 pm
  38. Austin Say's says:

    You and Lee have been saying ‘Ah, he’ll just delete this’, and I haven’t deleted a thing since the troll assault ended sometime yesterday.

    Yes, you have you lying prick.

    Remember hot seamen!

    August 31st, 2005 at 5:10 pm
  39. Chris Austin says:

    SINCE THE TROLL ASSAULT ENDED – Give it up. You’re on deadissue.com now…time to recognize a few things, but most importantly – the people who post here could care less about whatever semantic beef you guys are wasting everyone’s time with now.

    Other than a real debate, you’re not going to accomplish anything along the lines of diminishing my credibility or the credibility of this foroum. This isn’t your dime a dozen Def Politics Jam.

    Decide to become relevent in some way or drift off into the sunset. Your choice.

    August 31st, 2005 at 5:27 pm
  40. Drumwaster says:

    Answer the question.

    August 31st, 2005 at 5:39 pm
  41. Austin Say's says:

    It is not semantics it’s that you can not recognize that you are a pathological lier.

    August 31st, 2005 at 5:59 pm
  42. Chris Austin says:

    Thanks Drum – here we go:

    DI: “To say I was against the war ONLY because Bush lied would be inaccurate.”

    DW: So your claims of being so upset about “finding out that Bush lied” was nothing but lies?

    It’s not very confusing of a concept here Drum. I was against the Iraq War from the getgo, and when I found out that the “evidence” used to get us there was known to be false when it was presented to the country (alluminum tubes), it pissed me off. So I’m upset about the fact that we’re there in the first place, and even more upset upon finding out that we were sold a series of lies to make it happen.

    DW: Since you were against the war from the beginning, I can only assume that you would have preferred that Saddam still be in power, with all of the mass murders, bribing of EUro-peon and UN officials, and support of international terrorism that came with that regime?

    Absolutely. The operation we launched in Iraq would only have been acceptable to me if there was a coalition of nations with substantial numbers of troops and an air-tight battle plan. Bush Jr. had to do it like his father did it to achieve victory, but he came miles short from the standard his father set for him.

    Given the choice of Saddam still being in power and going into the conflict half-cocked, I’d take Saddam still in power any day of the week.

    DW: If not, then perhaps you could explain the contradiction. You were either against removing Saddam under any circumstances whatsoever (since the other reasons Bush gave were proven TRUE), or you are lying now. Which is it?

    That’s false. There is a lot of room in between either wanting Saddam out under any circumstances whatsoever and what we chose to do. I mentioned in my answer above the first Gulf War and how Bush Jr. strayed extremely far from the example his father had set for him. Given a bonafide coalition convinced to fight based on solid evidence and an overwhelming number of troops that would have been able to secure the country following the invasion, Saddam could have been ’safely’ removed. By going in half-cocked, we missed an opportunity to do it right, and our troops and the Iraqis themselves are the ones forced to pick up the check.

    Your assessment of it being all or nothing (never take down Saddam or do what we did) is false.

    DI: “I believe that we helped to create the monster that Saddam was”

    DW: Even if that were true (just for the sake of the argument), doesn’t that make it incumbent upon us to take him down again? Or should we just have wrung our hands and waited until he put together a WMD powerful enough that even you wouldn’t be able to ignore it?

    Refer to my previous answers in terms of how we should have gone about taking him down. In terms of his WMD program, it was nonexistant. Even without the sanctions, prior and during the first Gulf War he couldn’t get a nuke built. The myth that he ‘could have’ is one of those notorious lies we were told that has been roundly debunked.

    Saddam was a neutered dog who could only hurt his own people by the time we decided to invade.

    Going out to dinner – I’ll be back online in a few hours.

    August 31st, 2005 at 5:59 pm
  43. Drumwaster says:

    I was against the Iraq War from the getgo

    I didn’t ask that. I already knew that. I want to know WHY. Is that too tough a concept? The only – and I do mean ONLY – reason you have ever given was that “Bush lied”, but that would imply a direct contradiction, since you were against the war long before it could possibly have been known that “Bush lied”. I have also shown innumerable examples where Democratic politicos said EXACTLY the same thing, yet you are not castigating them for lying, demanding their impeachment and/or resignation.

    That does nothing but expose you as a political hack for whom NOTHING would be acceptable so long as a Republican were in charge. Which means that your opinion is not related to the facts, but your personal opinions and biases, which contribute nothing.

    The operation we launched in Iraq would only have been acceptable to me if there was a coalition of nations with substantial numbers of troops and an air-tight battle plan.

    It was, and we did. We beat the fourth largest army in the world in less time than it took janet Reno to take the Koresh compound in Waco. That was with the able assistance of the largest coalition in all of recorded history. So that isn’t a valid reason, either. An excuse, but excuses are worthless, doing nothing but justifying a hatred you can’t get past.

    By going in half-cocked, we missed an opportunity to do it right

    Y’know, it’s a shame that you aren’t on the military planning group at the Pentagon, because EVERY SINGLE OFFICER ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ disagrees with you. It has been made clear, time and again, that if the commanders on the ground think they need more troops to do their job, all they have to do is ask, and they will be given the troops they need.

    So, on one hand, we have your opinion, based on personal opinion and no practical experience as a military planner. On the other, we have the leaders on the ground who are actually doing the job. Whose opinion carries more weight?

    Your assessment of it being all or nothing (never take down Saddam or do what we did) is false.

    Except that that “assessment” is official United States policy: Remove Saddam. (Signed into law by Clinton, who then did nothing to actually enforce it. But he’s a Democrat, so you’ll give him a pass.)

    Refer to my previous answers in terms of how we should have gone about taking him down.

    Yeah, either perfectly, or not at all. That about it?

    Still waiting for WHY you were against the war “from the beginning”. Is honesty that anathema to your nature?

    August 31st, 2005 at 6:17 pm
  44. Chris Austin says:

    DW: Still waiting for WHY you were against the war “from the beginning”. Is honesty that anathema to your nature?

    -Because it wasn’t necessary.
    -Because Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who blew up the towers.
    -Because we hadn’t apprehended Osama yet.
    -Because the players who disagreed with Bush Sr. and Powell about invading in the first Gulf War – Cheney and Rumsfeld mainly – were the ones beating the drum loudest.
    -Because the rest of the world didn’t buy our justification for invasion, meaning we would have to shoulder most of the burden ourselves.

    Are those enough reasons for you Drum?

    DW: That does nothing but expose you as a political hack for whom NOTHING would be acceptable so long as a Republican were in charge. Which means that your opinion is not related to the facts, but your personal opinions and biases, which contribute nothing.

    Disagreeing with the invasion from the start exposes me as a political hack? That sure is convenient reasoning for you isn’t it? Basically your argument is…if you disagree with Bush, you’re automatically a partisan hack. Grade school reasoning amidst a college course – not going to cut it Drum.

    DI: The operation we launched in Iraq would only have been acceptable to me if there was a coalition of nations with substantial numbers of troops and an air-tight battle plan.

    DW: It was, and we did. We beat the fourth largest army in the world in less time than it took janet Reno to take the Koresh compound in Waco. That was with the able assistance of the largest coalition in all of recorded history. So that isn’t a valid reason, either. An excuse, but excuses are worthless, doing nothing but justifying a hatred you can’t get past.

    As Gorilla Monsoon (WWF Wrestling) used to say, we won the battle, but we lost the war. You’re satisfied with the initial clobering of the Iraqi military and leaving it at that? Regardless of what happened afterwards? Again, grade school reasoning. Pitch this line to a veteran missing his legs and see whether or not it flies Drum!

    “A 1994 Congressional Quarterly study of contributions to the 1991 coalition found that other nations provided about 31 percent of the forces, though that percentage grew to 45 percent when Syrian and Turkish troops along Iraq’s border are included.” Drum, we’re not even close to that number and you know it. Even the number of Brittish troops has been reduced steadily since the invasion. Pretending the amount of international support from the first Gulf War can be rightly compared with the war we’re mostly fighting alone now is extremely dishonest.

    DI: By going in half-cocked, we missed an opportunity to do it right

    DW: Y’know, it’s a shame that you aren’t on the military planning group at the Pentagon, because EVERY SINGLE OFFICER ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ disagrees with you. It has been made clear, time and again, that if the commanders on the ground think they need more troops to do their job, all they have to do is ask, and they will be given the troops they need.

    An Army civilian who criticized Halliburton was demoted recently. General Eric Shinsecki provided an accurate assessment of the number of troops that would be needed (he ended up being exactally right) and was retired.

    Being that you were in the military, I’d expect you to understand the concept of ‘yes men’ a lot better Drum!

    DW: So, on one hand, we have your opinion, based on personal opinion and no practical experience as a military planner. On the other, we have the leaders on the ground who are actually doing the job. Whose opinion carries more weight?

    In the first Gulf War, Bush Sr. and Powell both predicted what Shinsecki said would happen, and they were all correct as the situation has grown worse by the month since we invaded. Do you honestly think that if a commander on the ground complained about having too few troops, they’d be dealt with kindly? How about Lieutenant General Riggs? 38 years in the Army, demoted and retired for stating that the forces were stretched too thin. They made an example of him.

    DI: Your assessment of it being all or nothing (never take down Saddam or do what we did) is false.

    DW: Except that that “assessment” is official United States policy: Remove Saddam. (Signed into law by Clinton, who then did nothing to actually enforce it. But he’s a Democrat, so you’ll give him a pass.)

    A policy of ‘Remove Saddam’ did not mean that we had to do it at the earliest moment. If so, then Bush would have attacked Iraq before 9/11. Obviously it wasn’t going to happen unless they had the opportunity to leverage public fear and present trumped up ‘evidence’ to slip it past the public.

    When Clinton went into Kosovo, Fox News and pretty much everyone on the right was frothing at the mouth about not having an ‘exit strategy’ – amidst chants of ‘No War For Monica!’ Or don’t you remember any of that? You honestly think Clinton could have attacked Iraq at any point during his presidency?

    DW: Yeah, either perfectly, or not at all. That about it?

    I think our armed forces deserve that much. Saddam wasn’t an imminent threat, so we didn’t need to go in half-cocked.

    Drum, it’s the results up until now that’s determining what way public opinion sways regarding this war. Bush’s honesty rating is below 40% based on every bit of nonsense he’s tried to sell about Iraq. He’s dug his own hole here.

    August 31st, 2005 at 8:30 pm
  45. Chris Austin says:

    Austin Say’s says:
    It is not semantics it’s that you can not recognize that you are a pathological lier.

    I believe the word is ‘liar’, and to say that without proof is about par for the course from my experience at RTFTLC.

    August 31st, 2005 at 8:33 pm
  46. Drumwaster says:

    -Because it wasn’t necessary.

    Opinion.

    -Because Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who blew up the towers.

    1) No one in the Bush Administration ever said that it did. But that was irrelevant to the global conflict, just like North Africa had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

    2) A Clinton-appointed Federal Judge disagrees with you.

    -Because we hadn’t apprehended Osama yet.

    So what? He’s out of commission, out of touch, and hasn’t been heard from in nearly a year. He has lost 90% of his funding, 80% of his troops, 95% of his senior leaders, and the moment he pops up anywhere he’s a dead man, even if he weren’t already a grease stain on a cave wall somewhere. But this is no more about him than the Second World War was about capturing Rommel.

    -Because the players who disagreed with Bush Sr. and Powell about invading in the first Gulf War – Cheney and Rumsfeld mainly – were the ones beating the drum loudest.

    They did not disagree with Bush Sr. about the first Gulf War. And they are the VPOTUS and SECDEF during wartime. Of COURSE they are going to be supporting the President. That’s their JOB.

    -Because the rest of the world didn’t buy our justification for invasion, meaning we would have to shoulder most of the burden ourselves.

    The parts of the world who stood against our efforts at trying to enforce the UN Resolutions – France and Germany and Russia – all had massive oil development contracts contigent upon the lifting of the sanctions. That financial dealing had more to do with not allowing military force (since both France and Russia used their troops against civilians while Iraqi negotiations were going on. France was feeding Saddam intelligence and selling them advanced weapons systems (in violation of UN sanctions). Germany was selling them precursor chemicals for Chemical weapons. Russia was selling Iraq GPS jammers.

    Are those enough reasons for you Drum?

    No, because none of them are actually connected with reality. I have the same suspicions about you, but for you to come to that realization would require an intellectual honesty you have not shown yourself capable.

    An Army civilian who criticized Halliburton was demoted recently.

    “Army civilian”? The term for that is “oxymoron”.

    Disagreeing with the invasion from the start exposes me as a political hack?

    Yes, because you were judging the efforts based on your preconceived notions of the individual. The war had not happened yet, so you cannot claim that you were against it “from the beginning” because of any alleged mistakes that were made. You cannot claim that it was a result of the poor planning resulting in lots of little attacks, because those had not started to happen yet.

    These aren’t reasons. They are excuses to justify an opinion you were already holding. THAT is why you are a hack.

    we won the battle, but we lost the war.

    How can you say we’ve lost something that isn’t over yet?

    To use a sports metaphor, we are up 147-0 as halftime is approaching. The other side has not managed to maintain possession longer than a down or two, and people like you are chanting that we’re losing.

    Those claims are doing nothing but encouraging the terror groups, because they are hoping that we will give up and walk away, just like we did in Vietnam. (That is the ONLY way this approaches anything even remotely approaching Vietnam, in that those on the Left are doing everything you can to get us to just give up and quit. We never lost a battle in Vietnam, and the estimated ratio was 20 VC killed for every one of our soldiers, but it was all about losing. Today, it’s closer to fifty per COTW soldier, but you never hear that reported, because that might give the impression that things are going worse for the terrorists than is presently being described.)

    You want to quit because it’s “too tough”. No one is asking you to fight. We’re asking you to let our soldiers win. Too much, I know, since that would make Bush “right”…

    A policy of ‘Remove Saddam’ did not mean that we had to do it at the earliest moment.

    How much time should we waste, waiting for Saddam to learn restraint? Everyone in the world agreed that saddam was dangerous. Everyone in the world acknowledged that Saddam had WMD (using them twice against Iran, and once against his own citizens). How much more time should we have waited? How many more children should have died because of the UN sanctions? or are you arguing that we should have let saddam free, despite the fact that he had never cooperated with the Inspectors, and subsequent information all says that it would have been a matter of months, not years, before he would have had those proscribed programs up and running full tilt. He was obviously supporting international terrorism. But you were okay with all that, I see.

    When Clinton went into Kosovo, Fox News and pretty much everyone on the right was frothing at the mouth

    That was because he had neither American national security, Congressional approval, nor UN permission on his side. (Bush had all three.) He also went in while undergoing Congressional investigation into Impeachment, and the “wag the dog” argument was clear.

    We’re still in Kosovo, I might add.

    So we should have waited until he actually had a nuclear weapon aimed at one of our cities before we start talking about taking him down? We can no longer afford to stand there, dumb and helpless, while threats gather against us. These people don’t mind dying, as long as they can kill lots of us.

    That is not a threat you can afford to ignore. But that’s what yoiu want us to do.

    Lemme ask you another question: Was Afghanistan considered an “imminent threat” on September 10th?

    Oh, and “honesty rating”? That would not be a reason you were against the war “from the beginning”. It couldn’t be.

    Still waiting for you to understand that your excuses are nothing but reasons you are looking for to justify an opinion you already had.

    Not holding my breath, though. I haven’t seen that much intellectual acuity from you. Why were you against the war before the war was even declared? Why can’t you just admit that if Bush were a Democrat you would be supporting him like he had just been hand-crafted by George Soros himself?

    August 31st, 2005 at 9:06 pm
  47. Chris Austin says:

    DI-Because it wasn’t necessary.

    DW: Opinion.

    Really? So if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we’d have suffered an attack from Saddam by now?

    DI-Because Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who blew up the towers.

    DW: 1) No one in the Bush Administration ever said that it did. But that was irrelevant to the global conflict, just like North Africa had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

    2) A Clinton-appointed Federal Judge disagrees with you.

    Drum, Bush has been giving Iraq speeches for the past year…from Fort Bragg to his trip to Idaho last week, and he draws on the tragedy of 9/11 every single time.

    And this coorelation with WW2 is ridiculous. Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. Iraq did neither of these things.

    DI: -Because we hadn’t apprehended Osama yet.

    DW: So what? He’s out of commission, out of touch, and hasn’t been heard from in nearly a year. He has lost 90% of his funding, 80% of his troops, 95% of his senior leaders, and the moment he pops up anywhere he’s a dead man, even if he weren’t already a grease stain on a cave wall somewhere. But this is no more about him than the Second World War was about capturing Rommel.

    I think the comparison here would be Osama to Hitler, and for the sake of the thousands of murder victims in NYC, a shrug of the shoulders like you’ve provided here is sadly political and nothing more than that. It’s a political rationalization for basically not caring about aprehending the criminal who murdered thousands of our people.

    DI: -Because the players who disagreed with Bush Sr. and Powell about invading in the first Gulf War – Cheney and Rumsfeld mainly – were the ones beating the drum loudest.

    DW: They did not disagree with Bush Sr. about the first Gulf War. And they are the VPOTUS and SECDEF during wartime. Of COURSE they are going to be supporting the President. That’s their JOB.

    From the day that war ended, the neocon think tank/insider opinion was that we should have taken out Saddam then and there. Their beliefs contradicted what both Bush Sr. and Powell wrote at the time about what would happen were we to invade Iraq. The insurgency and our military ending up bogged down is what they warned of, and what the neo-cons didn’t believe would happen. Who was right? Powell and Bush Sr – or – Cheney and Rumsfeld?

    DI-Because the rest of the world didn’t buy our justification for invasion, meaning we would have to shoulder most of the burden ourselves.

    DW: The parts of the world who stood against our efforts at trying to enforce the UN Resolutions – France and Germany and Russia – all had massive oil development contracts contigent upon the lifting of the sanctions. That financial dealing had more to do with not allowing military force (since both France and Russia used their troops against civilians while Iraqi negotiations were going on. France was feeding Saddam intelligence and selling them advanced weapons systems (in violation of UN sanctions). Germany was selling them precursor chemicals for Chemical weapons. Russia was selling Iraq GPS jammers.

    Drum, they didn’t buy our justification, which was proven to be wrong. If they had joined us in Iraq, the officials who were responsible for that decision would have had to pay for the mistake. Don’t you think it’s odd that Brittan’s troop numbers have been less and less as the war has gone on? It’s an exact play on what I just described above. You chalk it all up to business interests, but if that were the case then countries like the UK, Spain and others wouldn’t be pulling their soldiers out as they have.

    We’ve had to go this alone for many reasons. The business deals did not equal why every country who has let us go it mostly on our own, decided to do so.

    DI: we won the battle, but we lost the war.

    DW: How can you say we’ve lost something that isn’t over yet?

    To use a sports metaphor, we are up 147-0 as halftime is approaching. The other side has not managed to maintain possession longer than a down or two, and people like you are chanting that we’re losing.

    Drum, who are we at war against? Radical Islam, right? What’s the governing power in Iraq based on the constitution they’re voting on? THE KORAN!

    You call that victory?

    DW: Those claims are doing nothing but encouraging the terror groups, because they are hoping that we will give up and walk away, just like we did in Vietnam. (That is the ONLY way this approaches anything even remotely approaching Vietnam, in that those on the Left are doing everything you can to get us to just give up and quit. We never lost a battle in Vietnam, and the estimated ratio was 20 VC killed for every one of our soldiers, but it was all about losing. Today, it’s closer to fifty per COTW soldier, but you never hear that reported, because that might give the impression that things are going worse for the terrorists than is presently being described.)

    Drum, body counts are not a way of determining victory or defeat. You’re not counting Iraqi civilians in that 50-1 ratio. I’ve never even heard that body count cited in anything I’ve read, but even if it were something that could be accurately tracked, it doesn’t take into account the civilian deaths.

    DW: You want to quit because it’s “too tough”. No one is asking you to fight. We’re asking you to let our soldiers win. Too much, I know, since that would make Bush “right”…

    Too tough? The enemy has gained strength since the start of the war! We’ve lost strength and can’t keep up with recruiting needs. America is a democracy – the President works for the people. He’s not a king for four years because he won an election. Public support of the war is declining and it’s time for our policy in Iraq to reflect that. He’s had plenty of time to try this neo-con experiment…everything they said would happen hasn’t. American industry isn’t thriving in Iraq, the Iraqi oil revenues aren’t paying for the cost of the war, and Saddam did not pose a threat to American national security. Our gas prices are going through the roof and we’re occupying the 2nd largest known cache of oil in the entire world!

    DI: A policy of ‘Remove Saddam’ did not mean that we had to do it at the earliest moment.

    DW: How much time should we waste, waiting for Saddam to learn restraint? Everyone in the world agreed that saddam was dangerous. Everyone in the world acknowledged that Saddam had WMD (using them twice against Iran, and once against his own citizens). How much more time should we have waited? How many more children should have died because of the UN sanctions? or are you arguing that we should have let saddam free, despite the fact that he had never cooperated with the Inspectors, and subsequent information all says that it would have been a matter of months, not years, before he would have had those proscribed programs up and running full tilt. He was obviously supporting international terrorism. But you were okay with all that, I see.

    Saddam used WMDs on Iran during their war in the 70s-80s, and curiously the USA was supplying both sides with arms during that conflict. His use of chemical weapons on the Kurds was horrible, but Reagan didn’t seem to care about it in the least when it happened, so all this righteousness over what Saddam has done to the poor Kurds and Iranians is at least a decade late!

    You concede that he didn’t have the capability to construct WMDs at the time…well how did we prevent him from achieving that? UN weapons inspectors and sanctions. As I said before, even when he wasn’t under sanctions, he couldn’t manage to build a nuke. The warheads wouldn’t connect to the missiles he had on hand. His own scientists worked to sabotage his work towards achieving nuclear capabilities.

    Pretending that he was even a year away from having a nuke is ridiculous! The guy tried as hard as he could, and couldn’t put it together at any point…with or without the inspectors and sanctions. So removing him immediately was not critical to our national interests.

    DI: When Clinton went into Kosovo, Fox News and pretty much everyone on the right was frothing at the mouth

    DW: That was because he had neither American national security, Congressional approval, nor UN permission on his side. (Bush had all three.) He also went in while undergoing Congressional investigation into Impeachment, and the “wag the dog” argument was clear.

    We’re still in Kosovo, I might add.

    So while you’re completely comfortable with the rationale that Bush provides where we invaded Iraq for the sake of his people who he had been oppressing for decades – - – invading Kosovo to stop the genocide and get Milosovich into custody is a misuse of our military? The righties have a clear double standard when they accept it as a reason to go into Iraq, but not Kosovo. You guys level the importance of ‘those poor foreigners’ based on political necessity here at home. Because, by Bush’s standard of ‘we invaded to free the Iraqi people’, we should be in Darfur right now.

    And I never defended Clinton’s use of military force in Kosovo. My unit was the first to go on alert for that conflict, and while we waited they bombed the hell out of that area…hospitals, schools…they didn’t know what the hell they were dropping bombs on, just like the satelite photos Powell brought to the UN were not of what the analysts said.

    DW: So we should have waited until he actually had a nuclear weapon aimed at one of our cities before we start talking about taking him down? We can no longer afford to stand there, dumb and helpless, while threats gather against us. These people don’t mind dying, as long as they can kill lots of us.

    That is not a threat you can afford to ignore. But that’s what yoiu want us to do.

    Drum, he couldn’t manage to do it in over two decades in power – how can you assume he could do it now? That’s naive – and also not a good reason to sacrifice 1900+ military lives.

    DW: Lemme ask you another question: Was Afghanistan considered an “imminent threat” on September 10th?

    Oh, and “honesty rating”? That would not be a reason you were against the war “from the beginning”. It couldn’t be.

    Still waiting for you to understand that your excuses are nothing but reasons you are looking for to justify an opinion you already had.

    Not holding my breath, though. I haven’t seen that much intellectual acuity from you. Why were you against the war before the war was even declared? Why can’t you just admit that if Bush were a Democrat you would be supporting him like he had just been hand-crafted by George Soros himself?

    Drum, that’s what you’d like so much to be true, because it would validate your world-view of ‘everyone who disagrees with me is brainwashed by millionaire liberals’. George Soros doesn’t own every publication I subscribe to, nor does he own the publishing house of every book I read. The flip rationale of calling your debating opponent a drone is really a reflection of your own frustration over my arguments holding water.

    Your positions require faith – that Saddam COULD have built a nuke. First hand accounts from his own people dating back to the first Gulf War contradict this idea you seem to have so much faith in.

    A foreign war shouldn’t be a ‘faith based initiative’ Drum.

    September 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pm
  48. Right Thinker says:

    And this coorelation with WW2 is ridiculous. Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. Iraq did neither of these things.

    There was that little matter of the attempted assassination of GHW Bush.

    September 2nd, 2005 at 2:34 am
  49. Drumwaster says:

    Drum, they didn’t buy our justification, which was proven to be wrong.

    Despite the fact that their intel services were saying EXACTLY the same things, you still think they knew ahead of time that this ONE issue would turn out false. The fact that they would have had to disbelieve EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET in order to “not buy our justification”, just so that they could be retroactively proven “right”.

    Once again, you poor pathetic sap, you’re mis aligning the timeline of facts.

    They were against the war even though they had voted in favor of every single one of the vaguely shaking finger of warnings that the ineffective UN put out over the dozen years of lies, yet not vote for actually enforcing any of those 17 Resolutions (in fact, to threaten to veto any such resolution – sight unseen – is proof enough that they weren’t interested in actually punishing someone for breaking laws that they themselves wrote.

    Pay attention, dimwit: You cannot use “after the fact” knowledge to justify an opinion you already have. You cannot use knowledge that “there were no WMD” (even though there ARE, and you aren’t smart enough to understand those facts) to justify your anti-war status, because those facts were not “known” until well after the war was already over. In point of fact, as I have already shown (more than once, though you deleted them all), the “Bush lied” meme was being propagated long before it was even arguably supported by the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group.

    Which was less than a year ago.

    But you say you were against the war “from the beginning”, which means that WMD (or the alleged lack thereof) cannot have been the reason you had that opinion.

    COMPLETELY SEPARATE from all of the other reasons he gave for invading Iraq being ABSOLUTELY VERIFIED beyond our worst nightmares (of which reasons you never speak, and I wonder why that is), your opinion of Bush quite probably dates back to that first Tuesday in November, 2000, when your fair-haired boy got waxed.

    I still want to know whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit to yourself – and both of your regulars – exactly why you hate so thoroughly a man you have almost certainly never met…

    There are medical professionals and prescriptions to help you, but you have to want to change.

    September 9th, 2005 at 1:11 am
  50. Chris Austin says:

    Drumwaster: They were against the war even though they had voted in favor of every single one of the vaguely shaking finger of warnings that the ineffective UN put out over the dozen years of lies, yet not vote for actually enforcing any of those 17 Resolutions (in fact, to threaten to veto any such resolution – sight unseen – is proof enough that they weren’t interested in actually punishing someone for breaking laws that they themselves wrote.

    Perhaps they felt he could have something deadly, but that he had no power to threaten his neighbors. Ever consider that? If his status was viewed as that of a neutered dog, which he was, then how could it be an automatic justification for the sacrifice of their peoples’ lives?

    Drumwaster: But you say you were against the war “from the beginning”, which means that WMD (or the alleged lack thereof) cannot have been the reason you had that opinion.

    Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the world doesn’t begin and end with the WMD issue? You honestly can’t wrap your head around the argument that it’s none of our business? All of those European nations have been around for hundreds of years longer than us, and saw what the end result of ‘empire’ was for the UK and France. If the United States wanted support, yet demanded control over the operation, what incentive is there to contribute? The people of these countries that did send troops (UK and Spain are perfect examples) spoke up and the numbers have dropped or vanished completely since the invasion.

    Political climates internationally do not mirror what we toss around here in the US. That’s the fact we fail to acknowledge. The question of ‘why should we invade?’ can be rationalized, as every war in the history of makind has been in one way or another – but the results serve as proof of whether or not the rationalization justified the cost. We need that money here, in this country. And like I said, it’s none of our business. If the facts were as rock solid as you insist they are, then the international community would have agreed and contributed.

    I’m sure you have a cynical view of that statement and view the rest of the world as cowardly, but here we are in 2005 and it wasn’t worth it. The human and monetary costs have outgrown the flawed ideology that brought us there.

    Drumwaster: I still want to know whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit to yourself – and both of your regulars – exactly why you hate so thoroughly a man you have almost certainly never met…

    I think Bush is a rich kid who made mistakes, but never had to clean up his own messes. I don’t think he’s a leader. Bush is a politician, and that classification alone doesn’t qualify him as a ‘leader’ as I see it. His debates versus Gore clearly showed that he wasn’t the smartest guy in the room by a long shot, and that’s a serious disqualification for me.

    Clearly, the man only says or does what he’s told, and now that the effects of his poor choices are becoming obvious to even those who voted for him, he’s looking around for someone to feed him the right thing to say. He’s a politician – a damned good one – but a President…we can do a lot better in my opinion. The country would better off had McCain won the nomination and Presidency.

    But we elected the pampered rich kid instead of the leader who actually survived hardship and entered politics without his most vital asset being his name! I don’t have to like him. If he were born to a poor family, you and I would have never even heard of him.

    September 9th, 2005 at 6:07 am

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>