The reality based community

[kerry]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Geroge W. Bush inspires a lot of reactions in me and none of them are confidence. The man and his crowd are way outta touch.

To quote Richard Perle:
"The first time I met Bush 43, I knew he was different. Two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. the other was he had confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much. Most people are reluctant to say when they don't know something, a word or a term they haven't heard before. Not him."

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by glenmore

Certainly, she, her family and friends have suffered a loss of a loved one. But that gives her no more or less moral authority to argue for or against the war than anybody else. This is the same lame argument that unless Bush administration supporters don't enlist tommorrow or march their kids down to the recruitment center, they should shut up.

Sorry man, the bond between a mother and child is strong. I agree that Bush would put himself in an awkward spot by visiting with her again. But, I think her moral authority regarding this war is a little greater than mine.

And as far as her son having the right to sacrifice his life independent of her opinion, that is true to an extent, but 18, 19 year olds are pretty green, certainly in modern times. Parents continue their shepherding to varying degrees through the 20s and 30s of their children. Could well be that some young men fall for the lure of glorious patriotism over the protests of their mothers. In fact, it is often considered less than manly to be concerned about the caution of one's mother.

It's often a good thing when young men do break free from fearful constraints of parents and participate in military service. I maintain however, that military action is not automatically noble or prudent. If Sheehan distrusts Dubya as much as I do, I can understand her not wanting to quietly accept this.

[djugurba]

Originally Posted by H2O2

This post succinctly covers all the bases.

Son offers his noble services and his life is squandered based upon a pack of lies. Who the hell would voluntarily give their life for a pack of lies, even if it was ostensibly stated to be for a noble cause like god and country? A fraud and a crime was perpetrated upon that family (and the rest of the world), more power to her as she seeks redress.

Thanks. Sometimes I think I'm on everyone's ignore list around here.

These subtleties should not be that difficult to grasp, even for the most die-hard gingoes amongst us.

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by dculkin

If the reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of Saddam's atrocities against his own people, why did they wait until after the invasion to say so? And why did he wait so long? By the time Bush invaded Saddam had become too weak to commit large scale atrocities. And, finally, when do we start invading all the other countries where people are being mistreated?

The recent anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has brought forth a plethora of historical studies. Most of these are extensively footnoted. It is quite apparent that there was a tremendous amount of study, discussion and argument on how and if to proceed as well there should have been. No less was done here as to the whys and why nots of dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Originally Posted by dculkin

And, finally, when do we start invading all the other countries where people are being mistreated?

You know the answer to this question but I guess it is more fun to pose it to try and delegitimize our efforts in the Middle East.

glenmore

[luvrpgrl]

Originally Posted by peragro

As soon as they occupy a strategic position in the Middle East where we might influence other countries from, violate 10 years worth of sanctions, shoot at us during said period of sanctions, have a lot of oil, aren't a Islamic theocracy, have a history of attacking our allies, provide funding for our enemies and terrorist organizations and commit various crimes against humanity (I mean real crimes, not the made up ones that the far left attribute to Bush and company) and various other reasons that I can't think of to write down at this moment - others feel free to add to the list.

How about paying $25,000 to terrorists families who blow themselves up at Jewish weddings and funerals killing and maiming little children.

or, whose leader has sons who torture olympic athletes who fail to win the gold,

and who go to weddings and rape the brides.

C. Sheehan admitted herself she hopes Bush doesnt meet with her. She is a liar and a sham, disgraces her son and her family is disowning her and totally disagrees with her. But very typical, a father loses his son, he gets no coverage, the family which outnumbers her 10-1 get no coverage, the one looney lady gets all the media attention. Hmmmmm

Her goals have NOTHING to do with her son, his service or his wishes, or to honor him. She is dispicable.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by glenmore

The recent anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has brought forth a plethora of historical studies. Most of these are extensively footnoted. It is quite apparent that there was a tremendous amount of study, discussion and argument on how and if to proceed as well there should have been. No less was done here as to the whys and why nots of dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am not privy to the studies made or relied upon by the administration in deciding to invade Iraq. I would be amazed, though, if they engaged in anything approaching an open-minded, balanced analysis of the situation. Every indication is that their minds were made up and they had no interest in weighing the downside of their approach. Maybe you can point me to studies that prove me wrong, or maybe history will prove me wrong, but I just don't see the evidence that the Iraq invasion was thought through.

You know the answer to this question but I guess it is more fun to pose it to try and delegitimize our efforts in the Middle East...

Actually, the question was rhetorical, but I really don't know the answer to it. If saving the Iraqis from Saddam's human rights abuses justifies this war, why doesn't it justify invading other countries where atrocities are committed? I understand the strategic arguments in favor of invading Iraq. Peragro did a nice job of listing those. But I honestly do not understand that human rights angle. Maybe I'm dense, but my question is asked in good faith.

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Sorry man, the bond between a mother and child is strong.

But, I think her moral authority regarding this war is a little greater than mine.

So I guess you extend the same courtesy to mothers of fallen soldiers who support the war effort wholeheartedly? Where does that leave your anti-war arguments?

From this article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200508170759.asp

I quote the author:

"at the end of the day, arguments must stand on their own merits, regardless of who delivers them".


glenmore

[Honus]

Originally Posted by glenmore

So I guess you extend the same courtesy to mothers of fallen soldiers who support the war effort wholeheartedly? Where does that leave your anti-war arguments?...

You didn't pose these questions to me, but I will take the liberty of answering them anyway.

As to extending the same courtesy to mothers of fallen soldiers who support the war effort, absolutely they deserve every bit the same level of respect as the anti-war moms. As to where that leaves the anti-war arguments, it makes them more unsettling, but doesn't convince me that the war is right.

Unlike the people that I have heard and read attacking Cindy Sheehan, I try to keep an open mind. The same cannot be said of many people on the other side. What really makes me mad is the way the administration attacks the mental health of anyone who lands a good punch on them - McCain, O'Neil, Clarke, Sheehan, and others. The Bush people (which includes Botnst) have the gall to publicly question the mental health of the people who disagree with them. It makes it hard to keep an open mind for the pro-Bush position.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by dculkin

...The Bush people (which includes Botnst) have the gall to publicly question the mental health of the people who disagree with them. It makes it hard to keep an open mind for the pro-Bush position.

You eyeballin' me, boy?

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Botnst

You eyeballin' me, boy?

.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by narwhal

That seems to be contradictory to your first ammendment policy

The First Amendment is overrated, anyway.

[luvrpgrl]

It is unbelievable how the parrots keep singing the same tune when they have been answered over and over and over and over again.

Bush lied, yet it has been pointed out that he didnt LIE, he was mistaken at worst. That he had the same info as everyone else (including Clinton and Kerry), and they all concluded Saddam was a threat and had WMD.

Saddam did all he could to appease Bush. BS, Saddam stifled the inspections every step of the way. Besides, it was incumbant upon him to PROVE he got rid of the WMD. Its too easy to hide them somewhere in that vast desert. We dont even know if maybe they are buried out there somewhere.

The war is illegal. Yet CONGRESS authorized Bush to invade.

Bush is stupid, yet he had higher grades at Yale and has a degree from Harvard. Hmmm, yea, pretty stupid. Not to mention he was twice elected gov. of Texas, something nobody else in recent history has done, and to be elected pres., one may be incompetent (Carter), but you certainly cannot possibly be stupid to get that far. Thats a true insult to the American populous to believe someone stupid could become our president.

[Austin85]

Excuuuuuuse me!

Someone who is quoted as saying..." I can't meet with her, I have to get on with MY LIFE.." This is the president of the US and you support him...??

Nothing personal, but, either you have really low standards for leadership; or $h!t you're stupider than he is....

He should be tries in a world court for murder, or sent to Iraq in a trade for Saddam. Straight up!!!! Call it a wash.

[peragro]

Originally Posted by Austin85

He should be tries in a world court for murder, or sent to Iraq in a trade for Saddam. Straight up!!!! Call it a wash.

Sooooo, let me get this straight. You want Saddam Hussain as president here, in the US, and Bush over there in Iraq, in jail?

Dude, you are not right.

Keep that Baath party card handy though, I guess if you have your way here you'll need it.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by glenmore

So I guess you extend the same courtesy to mothers of fallen soldiers who support the war effort wholeheartedly? Where does that leave your anti-war arguments?

From this article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200508170759.asp

I quote the author:

"at the end of the day, arguments must stand on their own merits, regardless of who delivers them".

I in no way tried to downplay the opinions or credibility of mothers who lost children in Iraq but support the war nonetheless. I say let them speak out. Haven't heard too much about such a group. Could be they're hedging their bets.

I read most of the NReview article. I can only stomach so much of those guys -- they remind me of the Weekly Standard crowd: masters of spin. That's why they make the big bucks.

I'm not too keen on Sheehan's energy, man. I didn't do a nation-wide search for a spokesperson for the anti-war faction. She turned up. What can I do about that? Maybe she's getting an ego supercharging from all of this.

There's no way anyone can defend the former regime of Saddam and boys. I agree he needed reining in and defanging. I strongly disagree with the way we went about it. All of these crocodile tears for poor chickenhawks (see NRO piece). Funny how the real vets were a lot more cautious about this thing going in than the non-vets. I'm not a vet. I don't think that disqualifies me from speaking out in civic matters or defense issues. Still, Bush and Cheney embraced the warrior thing when they could be the power behind the generals, but avoided it when it was their time for dues-paying, even though they supported the mission at the time (Vit-nam). In light of that, I think they should have given more weight than they did to the views of Powell and Shinseki.

They didn't. Things not looking so good. Saddam's in jail. Whoopee.