Woman Demands To Speak With Bush

[twa]

Originally posted by codeorama

Maybe her son's ghost will come back and haunt George...

More likely to haunt her

At least from what I read of this young man and his choices in life.

[Funkyalligator]

Its her perogative as an American citizen to protest and such that is what freedom means....if the press chooses to ignore real issues in this world and cover her...that is their perogative.....

On the other hand...Bush didn't kill her son....terrorists in Iraq did...did Bush f*ck up when he sent troop into Iraq...yes he did...not enough of a plan before they went in and it backfired in a big way....also it should have been Syria...

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

What I find disgusting are the people like Michael Moore who keep brainwashing people like her into believing her sone died for nothing when in fact all terrorists pool their resources and Saddam was a HUGE state sponsor of terrorism who had multiple documented contacts with al Qaeda. Let's also not forget that everyone including Clinton believed had WMD. Bush didn't jus pull that WMD thing out of his #ss. He simply accepted what everyone else believed. Not to mention the fact that the Duelfer report documents the fact that Saddam had retained the capability and had the intention to re-start his programs with the end of the (failed) UN sanctions.

Prove it. . .

Yes, I've been down this road before with you Mike, and your argument is ALWAYS. . .

Prove he didn't have them

And yes, Clinton was wrong too, but there is one major difference which you neo-cons can't get through your head. . . CLINTON DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ!!!!!! :doh:

[chomerics]

Man, this woman lost her son, and she is asking for accountability and rational reasoning from the president.

Is it the best way to go about getting answers from a president and an administration who thinks they DON'T have to give answers? No, it is not.

But in thhe same breath, out president has a RESPONSIBILITY to talk to her as the person who sent him into battle. After all, he IS the president, and he NEEDS to be held accountable for his actions. His JOB is to answer questions like she asks, not answer questions from some homosexual plant his administration placed in the press room!!!

How can you people put your support behind a man who has blatently framed intel to make it appear as if there was more of a problem with Iraq?

How can you believe in a man who puts his "agenda" above our countries security?

How can you defend a man who will not answer questions to people who deserve answers?

What she wants to ask him is a great question.

If this war is such a noble cause, why are his children not enlisted in the military, nor any Senators children? Tough question to answer, but Bush OWES her the answer!!!

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by chomerics

CLINTON DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ!!!!!! :doh:

Because he didn't have the kahunas to do so.

In 1998, when we sent bombs into Afghanistan, why didn't we follow up with troops? Maybe, we could have avoided 9/11 (maybe). We will never know, because President Clinton didn't send in troops to root out the terrorists (possibly catching UBL).

[Walking Deadman]

Maybe she should go to Iraq and demand to talk to the terrorist who killed her son.......maybe find Osama or the current "leader" of Al-Quaeda (sp) and ask them.

How about the sultans of Saudi Arabia who's funding this......

[chomerics]

Originally posted by airborneskins

Because he didn't have the kahunas to do so.

In 1998, when we sent bombs into Afghanistan, why didn't we follow up with troops? Maybe, we could have avoided 9/11 (maybe). We will never know, because President Clinton didn't send in troops to root out the terrorists (possibly catching UBL).

Yes, all of the Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq :doh:

BTW, when Clinton went after Bin Laden, what did the RNC cry??? WAG THE DOG!!!! Yes, they put politics before our national security yet again!!!! :doh:

As for Bush, what did he do to the terrorists before 9-11? What did he do after the Aug. 6th PDB? What did he do with the "terrorism czar"? What did Bush do about the Cole bombing?

Before you throw stones, make sure you don't live in a glass house.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by goskins

Maybe she should go to Iraq and demand to talk to the terrorist who killed her son.......maybe find Osama or the current "leader" of Al-Quaeda (sp) and ask them.

How about the sultans of Saudi Arabia who's funding this......

I agree totally with this statement, and she should look to them as well. It doesn't take away the fact that it is the responsibility of the president to hold people accountable, especially himself. Something he has NEVER done his entire life.

[Walking Deadman]

One last thing.....

It was neither Bush or Clinton's fault for 9/11.....it was a bunch of terrorist scum who drove airplanes into NY, the Pentagon and if they had gotten their way the capitol. They killed those innocent people......screw the blame game politics-junkies and NEVER FORGET THAT!!!!!!!

What Bush, Clinton and everyone else (including the American and World public) failed to realize was how serious of a danger these terrorist cells were becoming.

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by chomerics

But in thhe same breath, out president has a RESPONSIBILITY to talk to her as the person who sent him into battle. After all, he IS the president, and he NEEDS to be held accountable for his actions. His JOB is to answer questions like she asks, not answer questions from some homosexual plant his administration placed in the press room!!!

Ok see TWA's link above.. Take it for what you will, but it sounds like she already had a face to face with the President.

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by chomerics

Yes, all of the Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq :doh:

BTW, when Clinton went after Bin Laden, what did the RNC cry??? WAG THE DOG!!!! Yes, they put politics before our national security yet again!!!! :doh:

As for Bush, what did he do to the terrorists before 9-11? What did he do after the Aug. 6th PDB? What did he do with the "terrorism czar"? What did Bush do about the Cole bombing?

Before you throw stones, make sure you don't live in a glass house.

Look I may see things from one point of view, but you my friend are the same way. As for your accusations about what President Bush did about the cole bombing etc. Look up the date in history buddy. Yeah that's right October 12, 2000... Hmm who was President then? And why didn't he do anything about it? Oh thats right, you want to blame President Bush for what President Clinton didn't do.. OK So you my friend are living in a glass house..

I can think of 3 more terrorist attacks linked to Al-Quaida during President Clintons administration. The 1993 world Trade center attack, the 1996 Khobar towers attack in Saudi, and the 1998 U.S embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.

You see Clinton didn't go after Bin Laden.. In 1998, He threw a few missiles at the training camps and left it at that. If he would have sent US in at the time, maybe we could have taken care of these pricks before they fled.

And BTW, your comment about the Al-Queda terrorists in Iraq, I know that there were more camps other than Iraq, Hell I've walked through a couple of them.

I sir am not claiming to be a military expert, I am however claiming to be a soldier who has fought under both Administrations and has seen alot of stuff that you will never understand. So sir, before You cast stones realize that you are talking to a person who is more qualified than you to talk about the military operations.

Now back to the topic at hand... I feel for this lady, however, I do not agree with her using her sons death as a basis for political profit. That sir Disgusts me.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by airborneskins

Look I may see things from one point of view, but you my friend are the same way. As for your accusations about what President Bush did about the cole bombing etc. Look up the date in history buddy. Yeah that's right October 12, 2000... Hmm who was President then? And why didn't he do anything about it? Oh thats right, you want to blame President Bush for what President Clinton didn't do.. OK So you my friend are living in a glass house..

I'm not sure if it was you, but it is a common defense from the Bush supporter, and I just got through debating this the other day. When was the Cole bombing? October of 2000. How about when the election was? Three weeks later. When did he find out when the Cole was bombed by Bin Laden? Early Janurary of 04'. So, are you saying that we should bomb people without knowing the facts? I do not prescribe to that course of action. The reason for this is because we all know what can happen if you are wrong.

So, Clinton had a few weeks to attack Bin Laden before he left office, Bush had 9 months. Where is the blame again?

I am not absolving Clinton by any stretch, just showing you how your talking point is nothing but a complete farce, when logic is applied, and myopic when the entire situation is examined.

BTW, why are we not going after Bin Laden???? Wasn't he the one who attacked us? Isn't Al-Qaeda the terrorist org. that has killed countless thousands worldwide? You know, the guy who Bush said he "wasn't concerned about" right before Iraq.

You see Clinton didn't go after Bin Laden.. He threw a few missiles at the training camps and left it at that. If he would have sent US in at the time, maybe we could have taken care of these pricks before they fled.

I can't even IMMAGINE the crap the RNC would have spewed out if Clinton went in. Do I have to bring up articles from newsmanx, The American Prospective and other conservative rags from that time period to show you how truly wrong you are?

And BTW, your comment about the Al-Queda terrorists in Iraq, I know that there were more camps other than Iraq, Hell I've walked through a couple of them.

Bull$h!t, and I am calling you on this one. If there was proof, don't you think Bush would announce it to the whole world??? Wouldn't it save a little bit of face for this administration? You have claimed this before, but where is your evidence? You have none. Were there training camps in Iraq? Probably, but not for Al-Qaeda. Why in the world would they train in a hostile country? Your argument lacks any and all credibility when actual logic is applied and evidence is asked for.

Proof will change my mind, and no, not proof from some newsmax site, but a mainstream site from AFTER 2004. I have seen not one bit of evidence that there was ANY relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. After all, Al-Qaeda HATED Iraq for numerous reasons. If they were to join with Hussen, they would loose all faith, not only in their teachings, but also in recruitment. It is completely against their ideology. Iraq was a secular state. Iraq did NOT have a working relationship with Al-Qaeda and they were nin NO WAY responsible for anything concerning 9-11!!! I am getting sick and tired of people like yourself throwing out what ever you can to see what sticks against the wall.

I sir am not claiming to be a military expert, I am however claiming to be a soldier who has fought under both Administrations and has seen alot of stuff that you will never understand. So sir, before You cast stones realize that you are talking to a person who is more qualified than you to talk about the military operations.

Personally, I applaud you for serving our military, but that makes you no more of an expert to talk on a relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq then myself. In fact, I would say that I am more of an expert on the subject because I have an unbiased point of view. Just because you saw the sands of Iraq does not make you an expert on international relations any more then I am qualified to call myself an expert on basket weaving.

Now back to the topic at hand... I feel for this lady, however, I do not agree with her using her sons death as a basis for political profit. That sir Disgusts me.

So you must feel equally distain for Bush using the military as a backround for propaganda purposes too huh? Somehow I don't think feel this way about using the military for political purposes when it suits YOUR side, yet you can say a mother who lost her son disgusts you.

What if you had lost your life and your mother was questioning Bush, would she "disgust you" as well?

Glass houses my friend, glass houses.

[chomerics]

BTW, gotta go, but I will take this up again tomorrow.

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by chomerics

BTW, gotta go, but I will take this up again tomorrow.

[SEF]

Originally posted by twa

The woman is a tool

A little more info...sorry if a Druge link offends,but when you are dealing with sewage;)

http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

What Drudge left out. Who's the tool?

http://www.thereporter.com/republished

Bush, Sheehans share moments

By David Henson/Staff Writer

Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville.

Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country.

"That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."

But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.

Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.

For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.

"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."

The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

David Henson can be reached at schools@thereporter.com.

[heyholetsgogrant]

Bull$h!t, and I am calling you on this one. If there was proof, don't you think Bush would announce it to the whole world??? Wouldn't it save a little bit of face for this administration? You have claimed this before, but where is your evidence? You have none. Were there training camps in Iraq? Probably, but not for Al-Qaeda. Why in the world would they train in a hostile country? Your argument lacks any and all credibility when actual logic is applied and evidence is asked for.

We did in fact attack one terrorist base with commandos before the military offically set foot in Iraq (I am a democrat, but I do Acknowledge this)...But this base was in the northern part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam, but was enforced by the UN no fly zone.....also this terrorist base that was in northern Iraq Not controlled by saddam and his army, does not make up for the fact about no WMD;

[twa]

The TOOL is this ***** pissing on her son's life choices.

Read the background...This kid voluntarily put his life at risk for what he believed in,

Not once

Not TWICE

At least THREE TIMES

Whether I or anyone else agree with his choices or beliefs,for his parent to USE his death to push HER views is DISGUSTING.

She at least had the decency to restrain herself when she first met Bush. ,IF that is what you accuse Drugde of leaving out lc80.

Let me add: I have no problem with her voicing her views,BUT when uses her son's death for her platform ,despite his own desire to have a military career:puke:

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by chomerics

Bull$h!t, and I am calling you on this one. If there was proof, don't you think Bush would announce it to the whole world??? Wouldn't it save a little bit of face for this administration? You have claimed this before, but where is your evidence? You have none. Were there training camps in Iraq? Probably, but not for Al-Qaeda. Why in the world would they train in a hostile country? Your argument lacks any and all credibility when actual logic is applied and evidence is asked for.

Proof will change my mind, and no, not proof from some newsmax site, but a mainstream site from AFTER 2004. I have seen not one bit of evidence that there was ANY relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. After all, Al-Qaeda HATED Iraq for numerous reasons. If they were to join with Hussen, they would loose all faith, not only in their teachings, but also in recruitment. It is completely against their ideology. Iraq was a secular state. Iraq did NOT have a working relationship with Al-Qaeda and they were nin NO WAY responsible for anything concerning 9-11!!! I am getting sick and tired of people like yourself throwing out what ever you can to see what sticks against the wall.

Personally, I applaud you for serving our military, but that makes you no more of an expert to talk on a relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq then myself. In fact, I would say that I am more of an expert on the subject because I have an unbiased point of view. Just because you saw the sands of Iraq does not make you an expert on international relations any more then I am qualified to call myself an expert on basket weaving.

Chom, you are an amazing piece of work. You call yourself objective? (You lean as far left as anyone I know!) And that because of your self proclaimed objectivity, that you are more of an expert than someone who has been on-site? Are you high on crack?

Iraq under Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. Hate had nothing to do with their business relationships, and even if they did hate each other, they didn't hate each other nearly as much as they both hated us. Pragmatism overcame any supposed hatred.

You said proof would change your mind, but then you left yourself an out by saying the proof has to come from a mainstream source. You're never going to change your mind, and you know it. And I'm going to prove it. You see, the word did get out, it was put out by Bush and others, but the Dan Rathers of the world had no interest in presenting information that might have made Bush look OK, or perhaps justified his actions.

You don't trust Newsmax? Well, what about PBS?

"That was your reaction on September 11 -- that some of these people might be involved?"

"I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened.

Osama bin Laden has no such capabilities. Why? Because this kind of attacks must be, and has to be, organized by a capable state, such as Iraq; a state where they can provide high level of training, and they can provide high level of intelligence to do such training.

How could Osama bin Laden -- who's hiding in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan in small caves and valleys -- train people and gather information and send people to do such high-level operation? We all know this is a high-level operation. This cannot be done by a person who does not even own a plane in Afghanistan, who cannot offer such training in Afghanistan. This is definitely done by a mastermind like Saddam."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

That's an interview of an Iraqi who worked at Salman Pak, a terrorist training camp located about 20 km southeast of Baghdad (that's part of Iraq that was controlled by Saddam -- until we removed him).

Is PBS mainstream enough for you? If you want to cut yourself off from the most likely source of proof, with which you claim you'd be willing to change your mind, then you don't sound very willing to change your mind. But just in case:

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040303.asp

You can do a google search and find all kinds of stuff.

Here are some pictures of Salman Pak. Note the airliner in the bottom photo. (Photos from space Imaging, by the way)

[Thiebear]

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

Who's paying her now?

[Predicto]

BlueTalon, that is an interesting post. But it does not show that PBS or any analysts believe that there was a real connection between Al-Qaeda. It shows that one guy in an interview said he thinks there must have been such a connection.

I have no doubt that Saddam was a scumbag and that he wanted nothing more than to have the US to go up in flames. There are a lot of people like that in the world, in charge of a lot of countries.

I have enormous doubt about whether there was any connection between 9/11 and Saddam, and I have enormous doubt about whether this Administration ever believed that there was such a connection.

This administration wanted to invade Iraq for geopolitical reasons, to establish a military foothold in the area, to put pressure on other middle eastern governments or (if you are more idealistic) to kickstart a democracy in the area. You may or may not agree with those as grounds for an invasion. But to claim that 9/11 had anything to do with it remains a hollow claim.

There is a reason that virtually all of us on the board, in the US, heck in the whole world, were pretty much united in agreement that the invasion of Afganistan was justified, while a huge number of us do not agree that the subsequent invasion of Iraq was similarly justified. It is not just "left wingers" who feel this way, by any means.

I have been reading everything I can find on this subject for a long time. I cannot escape the conclusion that we were sold a bill of goods on Iraq, that we were lied to. We are there now, and there is no option other than to finish what we started, and God protect every one of our troops.

But I still resent being lied to.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Predicto

BlueTalon, that is an interesting post. But it does not show that PBS or any analysts believe that there was a real connection between Al-Qaeda. It shows that one guy in an interview said he thinks there must have been such a connection.

I have no doubt that Saddam was a scumbag and that he wanted nothing more than to have the US to go up in flames. There are a lot of people like that in the world, in charge of a lot of countries.

I have enormous doubt about whether there was any connection between 9/11 and Saddam, and I have enormous doubt about whether this Administration ever believed that there was such a connection.

This administration wanted to invade Iraq for geopolitical reasons, to establish a military foothold in the area, to put pressure on other middle eastern governments or (if you are more idealistic) to kickstart a democracy in the area. You may or may not agree with those as grounds for an invasion. But to claim that 9/11 had anything to do with it remains a hollow claim.

There is a reason that virtually all of us on the board, in the US, heck in the whole world, were pretty much united in agreement that the invasion of Afganistan was justified, while a huge number of us do not agree that the subsequent invasion of Iraq was similarly justified. It is not just "left wingers" who feel this way, by any means.

I have been reading everything I can find on this subject for a long time. I cannot escape the conclusion that we were sold a bill of goods on Iraq, that we were lied to. We are there now, and there is no option other than to finish what we started, and God protect every one of our troops.

But I still resent being lied to.

I'm not claiming Iraq had a direct tie to 9/11. But the Bush Doctrine, articulated shortly after 9/11, holds that countries that support terrorism are as culpable as the terrorists for terrorism, and that we'll be coming after them. There were many expressed reasons for going into Iraq. The WMD thing merely drove the timetable.

What my post was intended to do was to give chomerics evidence that Iraq and Al Quaeda had a relationship from a source he would accept -- PBS. (He already demonstrated that he'd closed his mind off from anything coming from sources he doesn't like.) It wasn't necessarily meant to be airtight. But I do believe that when you put the totality of evidence together, it's pretty clear that Saddam's Iraq and Al Quaeda had a working relationship. NOT that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. But it was this guy's professional opinion that the training for the hijackings took place at Salman Pak, as terrorists from all over the Muslim world trained there, and Al Quaeda simply didn't have the infrastructure to support that kind of training.

[Thiebear]

Who is Cindy Sheehan? She is the mother of slain soldier Casey Sheehan. On 4/04/2004 Casey Sheehan along with seven of his fellow soldiers were killed in a series of ambushes in Sadr City. A sewage pick up patrol consisting of sewage collection trucks, four humvees, and 19 men were on a routine mission when they were ambushed by a large number of gunmen. As soon as they cam under fire, one of their compatriots, SFC Swope stayed with the radio and signaled for help. Back at the base, the response was immediate, First Sgt. Carson reported that “word got around (at Camp War Eagle) fast that the patrol was in trouble.” They had guys who normally don't fight who volunteered to help their buddies. There were guys fighting to get on that convoy. This is substantiated by Cindy Sheehan, “And the sergeant said, ‘Sheehan, you don't have to go,' because my son was a mechanic.' And Casey said, 'Where my chief goes, I go.'" Thus Casey Sheehan became part of the first Quick Reaction Force sent in relief of the ambushed patrol. This first QRF was also ambushed on its way to relieve the “honey wagon patrol.” Sheehan was killed in the first few minutes of the second ambush.

So here we have a soldier new to Iraq trained as a humvee mechanic in the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment who knew where his duty lay. Casey was a twenty-four year old re-upper, having just signed for a second tour of duty after successfully serving his first hitch. This was no wet behind the ears eighteen year old recruit, this was a man who had already served in the Army for four years. He should be honored for volunteering for a combat position in a patrol going into a hot combat zone. It is a horrible thing to have brave young men killed by the kind of monsters that Muqtada al Sadr led, but it is even worse when people with a very pronounced, pre-existing, political agenda are willing to exploit the death of their own relative to pursue that agenda. You think I’m too harsh?

This is what Cindy Sheehan said in her “Open Letter to George Bush.”

“It has been seven months since your ignorant and arrogant lack of planning for the peace murdered my oldest child. It has been two days since your dishonest campaign stole another election…but you all were way more subtle this time than in 2000, weren’t you? You hardly had to get the Supreme Court of the United States involved at all this week...”

“... You feel so proud of yourself for betraying the country again, don’t you? You think you are very clever because you pulled the wool over the eyes of some of the people again. You think that you have some mandate from God…that you can “spend your political capital” any way that you want. George you don’t care or even realize that 56,000,000 plus citizens of this country voted against you and your agenda. Still, you are going to continue your ruthless work of being a divider and not a uniter. George, in 2000 when you stole that election and the Democrats gave up, I gave up too. I had the most ironic thought of my life then: "Oh well, how much damage can he do in four years?" Well, now I know how much you have damaged my family, this country, and this world. If you think I am going to allow you another four years to do even more damage, then you truly are mistaken. I will fight for a true vote count and if that fails, your impeachment. Also, the impeachment of your Vice President...”

“...George, I must confess that I and my family worked very HARD to re-defeat you this time, but you refuse to stay defeated. Well, we are watching you very carefully. We are going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people into a disastrous war and for mis-using and abusing your power as Commander-in-Chief.”

Worst thing "politically" Ive read in years...

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/malven/2005/06/cindy-sheehan-are-those-crocodile.html

I hope CNN reports even 1/2 of this...

[BlueTalon]

Interesting stuff, Thiebear. I'm wondering where her son got his integrity and character from.

[Baculus]

So much, so little time:

Do any of us realize that a couple of regimes had offered to hand over (or try to hand over) OBL to the U.S.? This includes the Sudan during Clinton's term and Afghanistan (yes, the Taliban made this offer, but we wouldn't have any part of it). Or what about Presidential Order W-199i, where Bush ordered the FBI and other law enforcement to back off of watching the Bin Laden family? Or the CIA meeting with Bin Laden in early 2001? Heck, OBL even toured this country, as Tim Osman in 1986 - talk about past connections to terrorists. Besides his home in Saudi Arabia, OBL had very close ties with the U.S. That being said...

The real lack of evidence, either related to 9-11 and the Iraq invasion, is the key. Where is the overwhelming evidence that should have been needed for the Iraqi invasion? There isn't any, that is the problem. We can discuss what we thought in the past, but much of that was probably based upon heresay, bad or intentionally mis-leading intel, and a group of men who had decided to already invade Iraq, so they "Fixed the facts around the data."

The Downing Street Memo and subsequent documents seem to be constantly forgotten. This administration had a desire - they wanted to invade Iraq and oust our former CIA-asset of Saddam - so they purveyed whatever story line, and used past "facts" to support their assertions. It's pretty darn transparent for anyone willing to step out of the box and look at the situation.

I think the photo of Powell was to remind us of his assertions when he approached the U.N. and made definitive claims. Never mind the detail that most of Saddam's WMD stock would be inert by the 21st century, another oft-overlooked detail. Remember all the claims of "Well definitely find something, whether it is WMDs or mobile labs." Remember all those diagrams of the mobile labs, and, at the time, the seemingly impressive intel that we had?

Bluetalon and others have military knowledge of the situation on the ground, but that does not mean knowledge of what's happening at the high ranks of planning. After all, a lot of the issues we are discussing involve the civilian branches of the government, e.g.. the Presidency and the CIA.

And regarding that one camp - well, unless we have pictures of terrorists training there, it is all heresay, for good or bad.

One note: OBL has been rumoured to have died a while ago. Even the video that showed him discussing the 9-11 attacks were obviously modified (this is really, really obvious if you look at the real OBL next to the one in the video), so who knows if we can even "capture" the man. By the way, if you do not believe me, I can post an article that demonstrates the above assertion of a video fake.

When it comes down to it, the Bush administrations assertions, one after another, wouldn't even stand up in a court of law. Ranging from the 9-11 story (which has produced zero evidence) to the justification to invade Iraq, we get one flimsy excuse after another.

[Baculus]

I'm not claiming Iraq had a direct tie to 9/11. But the Bush Doctrine, articulated shortly after 9/11, holds that countries that support terrorism are as culpable as the terrorists for terrorism, and that we'll be coming after them. There were many expressed reasons for going into Iraq. The WMD thing merely drove the timetable.

The issue is that the WMD reason was given as the primary reason. This was pushed into our heads over and over again, exemplified by the Powell photo. This was false, along other Bush administration assertions.

Yes, WMD's drove the timetable - it created a false impression that Iraq was an immediate threat. You are correct - the Bush administration had a time table, so they created a propaganda machine to false lead the American public into their reasoning for invasion. And the Bush doctrine is flimsy - there is terrorism of what sort or another all over the world. Heck, we are even dealing with central Asian governments that terrorize their own people, but as long as they're on "our side," we ignore those messy little details.