# Cindy Sheehan has lost her ever-loving mind **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 17, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071 "2005-09-17T00:53:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/121 "2005-09-18T05:29:54Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I reiterate: Pffffffffffffffffffft! > > [Spectrum 7, Bush’s pre-Harken company, was failing under his watch. Yes it was bought out, but it was still being run into the ground before it was bought out.](http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=196) No. This is still a falsehood and is **not** what your article says. It says “a flood of cheap, imported crude oil drove many small, domestic producers out of business. Bush was at the helm of another struggling company seeking a bailout. Spectrum 7 was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy” Where is something that can be construed as “run into the ground.” One might argue that Bush was successful as a businessman by finding a buyer for his company. [quote] [Later, Harken was failing. Under Bush’s watch. And it was using Enron style accounting, (which was praised by Dick Cheny in an Arthur Anderson video) to cook the books.](http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067870) [That’s not really a factual cite. It’s more an opinion piece. “Harken hypocrisy?” This is supposed to give you a balanced recitation of facts? Enron style accounting? Cook the books? Give me a fucking break. Harken in fact did not fail, nor was it Bush’s “watch” in terms that he was not in charge of the company if it had. He had responsibilities within the corporation but was not at the helm, and can’t take credit for success nor responsibility for failure outide of his purview. > [@](#): > > And it’s not like the Harken stock sale didn’t smell awfully fishy.]([http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2002-November/005057.html](http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2002-November/005057.html)[ > [/quote) > > [url=http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2675] No. It really really didn’t. I know more about rule 144 stock transactions than anybody should be forced to know. We’ve seen that memo. **Elucidator** found it, iirc. It’s boiler plate. That means it’s standard fare that’s produced whenever a corperation get involved in investment banking transactions. The fact of the matter is that Bush actively sought a legal opinion regarding the sale of his stock from the legal department **before** he sold the stock. He received one. While the legal department cannot clear him (since it’s the SEC that will determine after the fact whether it was legal,) he was presented with a favorable opinion regarding the potential sale with all the pertinent disclaimers and caveats. He had a preexisting need, and the SEC determined after the fact that there was no possibility for illegal insider trading since there was no material nonpublic information, as can be clearly demonstrated from the subsequent action of the stock. Rule 144 stock transactions are commonplace. This article is attempting to create the appearance of impropriety where no impropriety exists. I see this definitively. It is difficult to prove a negative, but in this rare instance, it is possible. Since there was no material nonpublic information, Bush could not have sold his stock based on it. In fact, the stock offering **helped** Harkens as it provided much needed cash and the stock went up as a result of the news. Look at a chart on the stock. Or, better yet, read the 12 page trainwreck on the subject wherein we go into excruciating detail. I’m an expert on rule144 stock sales. Here’s how it works. Insiders always have inside information. There’s nothing wrong with them posessing it. There’s nothing wrong with them selling their stock either. What they cannot do is sell their stock based on material nonpublic information (or buy it for that matter.) Since Bush had a need for capital for his Rangers venture it would be tough to make the argument that Bush’s sale was predicated on any information he had regarding Harkens immediate future. “Material” means there has to be real losses by investors who did not posess the information available to the insider. There were none as the offering was a positive for the company that drove the price up. You need to demonstrate that an investor without the information Bush had would have acted differently and been injured through doing so. The information in question was related to an offering that raised money for Harkens getting it over the hump. This is a positive. Hardly news that would provoke one to sell. I already wasted time trying to educate people about rule 144 stock sales in a seperate thread when this issue came out. I’m not going to do so again. If you wish to show that Bush broke the law you need to demonstrate that he posessed material nonpublic information and acted on it generating losses to other investors. 1. What specifically was the information? 2. Prove that Bush posessed it. 3. Show that Bush acted on it. 4. Demonstrate its materiality. 5. Show the losses. > [@](#): > > Bush didn’t help the Rangers’ owners come together, Your article says differently. “Bush and DeWitt quickly assembled a team of investors” > [@](#): > > his investment was meager, although it was upped to 10% through no bussiness decisions of his own. Untrue, according to your article: "“George W. Bush deserves great credit for the development of the franchise,” Ueberroth said. “However, the bringing together of the buying group was the result of Richard Rainwater, Rusty Rose, Dr. Bobby Brown and the commissioner.” Note that this contradicts my previous quote (the article is contradictory on this topic.) In the interests of fleshing it out, here’s more context for the first quote: “They hit a snag when Peter Ueberroth, then commissioner of Major League Baseball, told them he wouldn’t approve the sale without more investors from Texas. Ueberroth believed that local owners would be less likely to relocate the team. The commissioner, a GOP donor himself, wanted the deal approved before his term expired at the end of 1989, and so he and then-American League president Bobby Brown took it on themselves to line up Fort Worth financier Richard E. Rainwater.” So, it appears that Ueberroth got involved in the deal, but Bush had lined up investors as well, just not, in Ueberroth’s opinion enough (actually it look like Ueberroth simply wanted in.) > [@](#): > > And the Rangers were primarily helped by fleecing the taxpayers for a new stadium and grabbing land from citizens who would later sucessfully sue for 11 million dollars in damages. Listen, this is a hack job article. You know it. I know it. The article sets off trying to make Bush look bad and so it presents things in that fashion. The question is whether you could say he was unsuccessful. You can’t. He had some success. His story is not particularly uplifting or laudatory, nor do I find his career distinguished or a model for emulation, but we’re trying to be accurate here. You want to call him a failed business man. He wasn’t. I’m going on vacation in about five hours for a week so I won’t be able to answer. Sorry to cut and run. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/122 "2005-09-18T05:56:41Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > I’m perfectly able to do it, I just choose not to right this minute. Give me 24 hours, and I’ll come up with it. > > Robin I wish you luck on your search. Usually, though, doesn’t one first have evidence of someone lying and THEN call that person a liar? I don’t measn to pick on you about this, and I’m no fan of GWB, but people spew this nonsense as if it’s fact. The NY Times did a piece about a year ago looking for the lies. They had a chart of what was said and when by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and a couple of others and couldn’t point to one lie. Not one. But maybe that depends on where one’s definition of “lie” lies. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/123 "2005-09-18T06:23:47Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I’m going on vacation in about five hours for a week so I won’t be able to answer. Sorry to cut and run. Well, first off let me thank you for clearing up my ignorance re: economics, I’d figured that being reasonably well read would suffice. I seem to have taken too much on faith, thanks for pointing that out. There are a few points I think we’d still see differently, but you’ve given me a bunch of new data to chew over. On this sub issue, at least, I’ll remain mum until I’ve had a chance to do further research. In any case, have a good vacation. Ya damn apologist! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/124 "2005-09-18T06:26:56Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I am no longer a Republican and am no great admirer of Bush Whoa, is it April 1 already? > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t measn to pick on you about this, and I’m no fan of GWB, but people spew this nonsense as if it’s fact. The NY Times did a piece about a year ago looking for the lies. They had a chart of what was said and when by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and a couple of others and couldn’t point to one lie. Not one. The _New York Times_ wasn’t looking very hard, I’d wager, since [entire books](http://www.bushlies.com/book.php) have been written on Mr. Bush’s falsehoods. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/125 "2005-09-18T06:48:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The NY Times did a piece about a year ago looking for the lies. They had a chart of what was said and when by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and a couple of others and couldn’t point to one lie. Not one. But maybe that depends on where one’s definition of “lie” lies. Mmmm hmmm… > [@Bush to the UN 9/11/02](#): > > [If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. > > If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis – a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.]([http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)) > [@Downing Street Memo 7/23/02](#): > > [The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html) By the way, another bit as to how they concocted this scheme? > [@](#): > > The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. > > The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. UN weapons inspectors who Sadaam wouldn’t allow to operate because he claimed they were American spies. [They were.](http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq0223.htm) So, just from this, the major lie would be that war was not inevitable, coupled with the fact that they sought ‘alternate justifications’ and were “fixing the facts” to support them. Was that on the NY Times quiz? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/126 "2005-09-18T14:34:42Z")
Sheehan is a nujob, pure and simple. Has been from day one when she started squatting outside Crawford and making a grade-A fool of herself in public. But, hey - she’s somebody Bitching About Bush, so she makes her wonderful and she gets air time and the liberals go crazy humping her leg. ---
**Author:** ![jlzania](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jlzania](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jlzania)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/127 "2005-09-18T16:19:02Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Sheehan is a nujob, pure and simple. Has been from day one when she started squatting outside Crawford and making a grade-A fool of herself in public. > > But, hey - she’s somebody Bitching About Bush, so she makes her wonderful and she gets air time and the liberals go crazy humping her leg. Well, at least we’ve drifted back on topic. I’ve seen Sheehan speak twice and although she’s no polished orator, she didn’t come across as crazy. She struck me as a very down to earth woman,articulate and sincere. Cindy doesn’t dispute that her son was a volunteer or that soldiers die in wars. However, she believes he was sent to Iraq because the Bush administration deliberately lied to the American people. She also believes, that as Commander in Chief, Bush bears the ultimate responsibility for making sure that when the troops are committed to a war, they have a clear goal, they know the conditions and terrain, they are guaranteed adequate equipment, and the government has an exit strategy. Mostly though, she wants to ask him is “For what Noble Cause” did Casey die? I think it’s a very valid question, as I really don’t have a clue what we’re accomplishing in Iraq right now or what our avowed purpose is now we’ve toppled Saddam and established that there are no WMD on Iraqi soil. And I didn’t lose a son over there. I think a lot of ordinary Americans have become more and more discouraged with the Bush administration. It’s hard not to feel pretty helpless. Cindy has managed to draw the focus of the mainstream media back into a discussion of our policy, or lack of policy in Iraq. Sure, Cindy has the ear of Air America and the more liberal press. Hell, the right wing radio pundits are raking it in by portraying her as a class-A nut job too. But I didn’t see hordes of hairy radical left wing extremists when I was at Camp Casey. I saw lots and lots of very average Americans who are trying to get some answers from the government about the continuing carnage. And the liberal media and Michael Moore aren’t funding her-at least they weren’t when I was at Camp Casey. As the IT gut crouched over his notebook plopped up on a concrete brick under a plastic tarp said, “If Moore or Air America was funding this, don’t you think I’d have a little better equipment?” I think the most important thing Cindy has done is to remind people like me, people who don’t know anyone in the military who live far from training camps and inductions centers and only know the soldiers as abstract statistics in the news that _real_ men and women are dying over there. After talking to a man whose son had died in a ambush in 2003, after listening to a woman who lives in fear because her son and DIL are stationed in Iraq, after watching a woman whose husband went down in a helicopter in Afganhistan weep helplessly-I can’t just shove the war on my brain’s back burner and go on with my business. It’s my government that’s perpetuating the war and my tax dollars that are funding it. I want some real answers. I want a plan to stop the killing. I want a strategy to bring the troops home. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/128 "2005-09-18T16:28:51Z")
Back off topic momentarily: > [@Scylla](#): > > The Rangers franchise was successful for the investors under Bush’s leadership. A baseball team is supposed to win. By that standard, Bush was spectacularly unsuccessfull. Sorry, he only gets half-points for his (debateable) skills at making money for the investors. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/129 "2005-09-18T17:44:56Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Back off topic momentarily: > A baseball team is supposed to win. By that standard, Bush was spectacularly unsuccessfull. Sorry, he only gets half-points for his (debateable) skills at making money for the investors. Jesus Christ, let’s say Bush was a mediocre businessman at best. At least he tried his hand at running a few businesses. And if business smarts are so important to your side, please list for me the accomplishments of, oh, let’s say John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Have any of them ever made money for anyone? Have they ever met a payroll? Why would anyone vote for any of them if they don’t know how to run a successful company? Oh, and by the way, I had Cindy pegged as a Michae Moore-brainwashed Looney Tune from day one. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/130 "2005-09-18T18:06:22Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > And if business smarts are so important to your side, please list for me the accomplishments of, oh, let’s say John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Wow, four _tu quoque_ fallacies in a single sentence. Is that a new record? A personal best at least? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/131 "2005-09-18T18:10:46Z")
And an irrelevant change of topic. 😛 Kerry had that cookie business… ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/132 "2005-09-18T18:17:27Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > And if business smarts are so important to your side, please list for me the accomplishments of, oh, let’s say John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Have any of them ever made money for anyone? Have they ever met a payroll? Why would anyone vote for any of them if they don’t know how to run a successful company? Here’s the thing: Starving Artist brought up his suppossed status as a ‘self-made millionaire’ as a positive for Bush, not that any one brought up his lack of business success as a negative. ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/133 "2005-09-18T18:23:08Z")
> [@jlzania](#): > > It’s my government that’s perpetuating the war and my tax dollars that are funding it. > I want some real answers. > I want a plan to stop the killing. > I want a strategy to bring the troops home. Your angst over Iraq has what to do with Katrina relief? Why do you and Cindy want to pull the troops out of New Orleans? Because, in your view, Bush fucked up in Iraq, so we shouldn’t help the victims in the Gulf region? That makes no sense, and why I say she’s gone off her rocker. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/134 "2005-09-18T18:29:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And an irrelevant change of topic. 😛 > > Kerry had that cookie business… The one in Fanueil Hall? Didn’t that fail? ---
**Author:** ![jlzania](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jlzania](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jlzania)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/135 "2005-09-18T19:12:35Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > Your angst over Iraq has what to do with Katrina relief? Why do you and Cindy want to pull the troops out of New Orleans? Because, in your view, Bush fucked up in Iraq, so we shouldn’t help the victims in the Gulf region? That makes no sense, and why I say she’s gone off her rocker. Angst-I like that. Nice way to trivialize a heart-felt conviction that my country is engaged in a stupid exercise in futilty that is killing Americans and Iraqi’s. Thanks. Did you even bother to really read what Cindy wrote in her blog? > [@](#): > > One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. > > The vast majority of people who were looting in New Orleans were doing so to feed their families or to get resources to get their families out of there. If I had a store with an inventory of insured belongings, and a tragedy happened, I would fling my doors open and tell everyone to take what they need: it is only stuff. When our fellow citizens are told to “shoot to kill” other fellow citizens because they want to stay alive, that is military and governmental fascism gone out of control I frankly didn’t see where she was arguing that establishing order is a bad thing. I think she’s expressing a concern that the basic needs of the population were still being neglected while the army focuses on protecting property. And yes, it does concern me that a private security company, Blackwater, is being used for security in New Orleans. I think an armed private army on American soil sets a bad precedent. And scares the shit out of me. ---
**Author:** ![Updike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@Updike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Updike)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/136 "2005-09-18T19:33:13Z")
> [@jlzania](#): > > I frankly didn’t see where she was arguing that establishing order is a bad thing. Bah. She is calling for the removal of troops from New Orleans! Never mind the thousands who have been rescued by the Coast Guard, the security the troops are providing (remember the situation in and around the Superdome? Do we want that again?), the logistics that are allowing food & medicine to even get to NOLA, as well as the ongoing recovery efforts. Nope, not important, pull out the troops. Apparently, Cindy’s loss is more important than any of that. My only hope is that she is indeed crazy (and gets some help), otherwise her selfish arrogance strikes me as evil. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/137 "2005-09-18T19:49:16Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Mmmm hmmm… Hmmmm, you offer the Downing Street Memo, which became public about 6 months ago, to refute (actually, I can’t figure out what you trying to do) a claim that I made about a NY Times article (which, for some reason, you chose to mischaracterize as a “quiz”) which I said appeared about a year ago—months BEFORE the DSM became public. What is your point? Oh, I see, another bumper sticker: No war for oil, no blood for oil, Bush is Evil, Impeach Bush, don’t forget the Downing Street Memo. Fine. Presenting your case to prove Bush lied you posted: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Bush to the UN 9/11/02 > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. > > If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis – a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections. …and > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Downing Street Memo 7/23/02 > The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. So, I guess by contrasting these two quotes you provide I’m supposed to see the Bush lie. Sorry, I don’t see it. I don’t see how the minutes of meeting among British officials could be used to show that what came out of the POTUS’s mouth was either 1) wrong or 2) something he knew to be wrong. And just so we’re on the same page, you would have to satisfy BOTH those criteria to prove someone lied. Then you offer this conclusion: > [@](#): > > So, just from this, the major lie would be that war was not inevitable, coupled with the fact that they sought ‘alternate justifications’ and were “fixing the facts” to support them. Oh boy. Let me see if I follow you. First you provide SIX quotes from Bush where he clearly states that war is NOT inevitable—each one clearly setting up a conditional proposition: "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will… Then you provide a quote from a memo in which he is not quoted at all, and that “proves” he lied. Mmmm hmmm… And you know he lied because the war was, in fact, NOT inevitable. So, I’m confused. Am I now supposed to ignore the six quotes you provided from Bush where he lays out the _conditions_—the NON-inevitability—for us going/not going to war. You made my head hurt. Now although the DSM had nothing to do with my post—as the artilce I had mentioned appeared months before the DSM was made public—here are a couple articles that might give the honest Bush basher pause. Don’t worry, it does nothing to dispell the Haliburton contracts or oil pipeline conspiracies, so Cindy and her crowd will still have somehting to chant. [http://slate.msn.com/id/2121212/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2121212/) > **[Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe](https://www.newsmax.com)** > > Newsmax.com reports today’s news headlines, live news stream, news videos from Americans and global readers > seeking the latest in current events, politics, U.S., world news, health, finance, and more. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18059](http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18059) At the very least I think you’ll find that “fix” might not always mean what you think it does. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/138 "2005-09-18T20:01:36Z")
> [@jlzania](#): > > Did you even bother to really read what Cindy wrote in her blog? > > I frankly didn’t see where she was arguing that establishing order is a bad thing. > I think she’s expressing a concern that the basic needs of the population were still being neglected while the army focuses on protecting property. > And yes, it does concern me that a private security company, Blackwater, is being used for security in New Orleans. > I think an armed private army on American soil sets a bad precedent. > And scares the shit out of me. Let’s not be disengenuous. Her only cause in life is to try to piss on the President. Unfortunately for her and the memory of her son, she’s making a fool of herself. I wish she’d stop, for those two reasons. While she might have had a degree of moral authority concerning her son’s death, she’s lost it. Her grief does not make any of her hair-brsined ideas any less hair-brained. And it certaiinly doesn’t give her any expertise in policy-making or how to handle a natural disaster. The quicker she shuts her mouth about anything not directly related to her son, the better. For her. Surely it shouldn’t be to hard to understand the need for order. Not in some abstract way, but based on what has actually transpired in NO. And as far as her handing out the hypothitical merchandise from her hypothical store, I’d commend her on that. I also hope she woulod be able to afford it, because that would not be covered by insurance. It would be charity on her part. Likewise goods that have been looted are not covered by insurance. (I am not a lawyer. But these are points that were made by lawyers in other recent threads.) If I was going to offer advice to the nation on a particular topic I’d feel the need to have a command of some of the basic facts. But hey, to each their own. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/139 "2005-09-18T20:55:29Z")
This just confirms what I’ve suspected all along: the New Orleans insurgents _hate our freedom!_ ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/140 "2005-09-18T21:10:40Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > Here’s the thing: Starving Artist brought up his suppossed status as a ‘self-made millionaire’ as a positive for Bush, not that any one brought up his lack of business success as a negative. Not quite. What I said, in response to a post made by **MsRobyn** , was: “I respectfully disagree. He’s quite the shit actually. He’s a person who is a self-made millionaire in business, and at a very young age; a two-term governor of the huge state of Texas; a two-term president of the United States; and as such a man who has never lost an election. A most remarkable record of acheivement…” These are statements I still stand by, and whether you or others here approve of the details or not, he was still a millionaire at a young age, and his electoral record is both obvious and amazing, given that he came from virtually nowhere politically to become both governor of Texas and president of the U.S. on his first tries. Following this post of mine - and contrary to what you say above - there have been many people bringing up his supposed lack of business success as a negative. I suspect this is what caused **Stephe96** to post about the business achievements (or lack thereof) of Kerry, Kennedy, the Clintons, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071.md?page=8)