Why dismiss such questions when it is infinitely more distracting to attack the questioner?
True, but not everyone who dismisses Ms. Sheehan is following that course. -Gainsaying the relevance of her questions is an argument worthy of response. The smear tactics are are worthy of nothing but contempt (not that they won’t continue, of course).
Was he attacking the questioner…or dismissing the questions for that matter? Seemed to me he was merely pointing out that the questions she is asking don’t show any great insight or even depth of knowledge. Compared to the cutting and insightful questions asked by the critics of Bush and the war on this board her questions seem almost trite in comparison. I thought Scylla did an excellent job in his last post of pointing out his position on this as well as going through what Cindy had to say.
I’ve really been avoiding this debate for personal reasons. I’m not sure how I feel about Mrs. Sheehan’s struggle here. My son is a Marine and has been deployed to Iraq. I’m scared to death something will happen to him. I can well understand how losing her son has made her angry and her feeling of helplessness. I feel pretty helpless myself. But my son made his own decision to join the Corps and while I’m scared for him and wish I could take his place, I’m also proud of him and support his decision to MAKE a decision as an adult.
I hope to god I don’t have to go through what Mrs. Sheehan is going through right now.
Anyway, carry on.
-XT
Scylla, the President needs to give an accounting of why he lied. And until he does, the question cannot be asked too many times. It should be on the lips of every citizen, on the front page of every newspaper, and echo in the halls of Congress.
This wasn’t a white lie or a personal lie about his drug habits or about his military service thirty years ago. This wasn’t a false accusation about another candidate trumped up in political backrooms by someone who knows someone.
From all appearances, this is the ugliest of lies.
Within reason, I think this part of Sheehan’s statement is fair. I can understand why there are people who have mixed feelings and are “fence sitters” and she does not. But if someone supports the war and supports the President’s policy in Iraq and is fit for service, I see no reason why that person should not volunteer in service to her or his country.
It’s not that punitive measures should be taken against those who speaks out in support of the war or the President. Why wouldn’t they want to do something about what they believe in? Isn’t that the honorable thing to do?
Those who are opposed to the war can find other ways to serve their country, support the troops and their families, bring the war to an end, promote peace in the Middle East and human rights everywhere.
So the President is sending mixed messages to his country. Tells Big Lie. Tells smaller lies. Sets goals. Mission Accomplished. Which one? Changes goals. Changes goals again. Quagmire. Stay the course. Bring 'em on! So there are more insurgents now.
I speak for all of us: such prayers as we can offer are yours. Further comment is impossible.
Thanks…I appreciate that 'luci. Gona be a long year. 
-XT
So you spell out what service you consider honorable, and everyone should do as Zoe says, huh?
Well, I could as easily say that if you support the troops, really support them, as you claim, you should enlist, get training as a battlefield medic and go over to save some lives.
After all, why wouldn’t you want to do something about what you believe in? Isn’t that the honorable thing to do?
The difference is, of course, is that I recognize that I’m not the one to be setting moral standards for anyone, in this circumstance. Until you come to that conclusion, you buy into the same morally bankrupt “chickenhawk” argument that has snared so many folks.
I’m a veteran, myself, and I still work to support the Navy every day. That doesn’t give my arguments any greater moral weight, as I don’t elevate my particular form of service higher that those forms you’ve undertaken, for example.
I’ll be pulling for him as well. Keep us all informed, and if you want to, post his address so we can send him stuff.
You didn’t? That’s pretty much all the SOB is about.
By itself, not a thing. There method of operation reveals the value of their ideology, or lack of it.
Those are some of the words trhey like to use. My point is that those concepts are not American principles or American values. They are principles and values that spring from humanity and were around long before this nation. Does this seem like a subtle difference? It is the arrogance of those terms that hint at the attitude beneath. The suggestion of a superiority that grants them the privilage of decideing the fate of this nation and other nations as well.
The only evidence I have is a pattern of behavior that I have observed over the past several years. It is that pattern of behavior that makes me believe the following.
And maybe you’re right. I would add our economic intersts as well. I may be naive but the idea of useing troops to protect our economy strikes me as a betrayal of the values that are often trooted out for elections.
This goes hand in hand with the pattern of behavior I spoke of.
Well first and formost is blatant dishonesty, the justification for this war being worst offense but far from the only one. The use of dishonerable political tactics such as the “rumors” about John McCain in the 2000 election and the inference that he betrayed this country. The Swiftboat incident, the outing of a covert agent and the protection of the people who did it. The refusal to share information with the rest of our nations leaders, {which they are doing again with Roberts} While useing the Patriot Act to do the exact opposite. the sighing of loyalty oaths by people attending Bush rallies. The manipulation of the media and the support of the “if you disagree you’re hurting America” crap. Violation of Geneva conventions in Iraq and Guantanemo. The attempt to install Cia supported informants as the leaders of a “free” Iraq. That’s enough for now.
Except I’m not pulling mine out of thin air.
work calls.
Not quite. My conclusions about their charecter are based on observations of their actions. How else are we to judge? I stand by my comparision. If a priest speaks of the love of God and then then commits a heinous act against a child what credibility does he have to speak of God’s love. When a preisdent takes a sacred oath and then lies to the nation to send us to war, plus all the other things I mentioned, what conclusions can I draw about his love for freedom, democracy, justice. It’s not a knee jerk reaction by a liberal. It’s based on observation and thoughtful evaluation.
Let me say that although I don’l trust this president or those in his admin. I still try to judge each issue seperately and fairly. I don’t disagree with every statement they make just because it’s them. I don’t embrace everyone who opposes them. I don’t like Mr. Moore because I feel he is just as dishonest as they are. I stopped supporting MoveOn because I thought they let their passion for opposing everything Bush lead them to bad jurgements.
You’ve made some statements about the necessecity of succeeding in Iraq which I can’t seem to find at the moment. I truly understand that hating Bush is not a solution to the terrorism issue. I understand the points you’ve made. There is a real question of if we can succeed and a real question of the cost to be dealt with. There is also a question of if this particular plan is the best way to use our resources in dealing with the terrorism issue. I don’t believe there will be a self sustaining democratic republic in Iraq until the majority of the people are willing to fight for it on their own with little help from us. Similar to the way the Afghani’s fought Russia. I don’t think we can accomplish that task through military force. You obviously disagree but your belief doesn’t add one iota of evidence that we actually can succeed does it? It’s only your “feeling” right?
Why post disingenuous one-liners?
Seeing as you’ve characterized her role as symbolic, it’s not central to your argument that you do.
I was kind of hoping somebody would though, since others have talked about what great points and compelling arguments she has made.
This is a surprisingly unfair mischaracterization. I went to lengths to specifically address these questions in detail. I, personally happen to think that the first is a very bad and pointless question. This question has been asked and answered many times. Bush answers it in basically every speech he makes. He did so again, today in his speech to the VFW. What he hopes to accomplish is:
- A free and Democratic Iraq
- The defeat of the terrorists since they can’t survive amongst an open and free people
- An ally in the war against terror.
- The general spread of Democracy in the Middle East
- The stabilization of the Middle East.
Those are the things that he has basically stated he is trying to accomplish. If one doesn’t know that, one hasn’t been paying attention.
Repeating simpleminded questions so Bush can repeat pat answers doesn’t do anybody any good.
As for the lie, I don’t really see how asking that question actually accomplishes anything. It’s not like he’s going to tell us he fucked up and undermine the war effort (Even if we make the very generous assumption that he would want to tell us otherwise, which I don’t think he does.) He really can’t say he fucked up. Though there are several stated issues for the war, the hot button has been the WMDs. An admission that he is mistaken here says to many that the war is unjustified, and damages an ongoing effort we are now committed to.
So, no, I don’t think that these are very good questions. In fact, I think they kind of suck. If you like, I’d be happy to tell you what I think would be some very good questions.
That’s a fair answer.
Bolding mine.
This implies that individual soldiers should be able to say, “Hey, I don’t support this action, and I’m outta here”. That’s a fairly dangerous position for a soldier to take. I would imagine that in the history of warfare, soldiers who didn’t agree with the objective still obeyed orders to carry it out*. That is their job.
I have no problem with Sheehan inviting war supporters to join the fight, but to advocate desertion is a little over the top*. Sure, soldiers have also deserted. I wager the number of deserters is much lower than the number who have completed an unpopular mission, but I have no cite handy for that.
- Spare me the “Bush was AWOL and didn’t serve” lecture.
As much as I think that statement of Sheehan’s is silly, I don’t think it’s fair to characterize it as “advocate[ing] desertion”.
I’m not sure. I go back and forth. On the one hand, I think he should be honest and it would do everybody good to hear such an admission. On the other hand (and please just don’t dismiss this. Think about it for a second,) it might seriously undermine the effort we’re committed to in Iraq. Our soldiers don’t need to hear something that detractors of the war are going to play as “proof” that the war is unjustified and that the soldiers’ efforts and sacrifice are for naught (I don’t think it means that, but that is the argument that will be made,) and I don’t think the insurgents and our enemies need the kind of shot in the arm that such a statement would make.
I think it was a mistake. I think he sincerely started with the premise that he had WMDs was sure of it, and got sloppy and refused to listen well to evidence to the contrary. So, if we’re going to classify what kind of lie this is, I don’t beleive it’s the worst. But then, I don’t beleive that the WMDs were the sole reason or tipping point to drive us to this war. I think we should have gone for all the other reasons anyway. YMMV.
I agree. I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t, either. I think the difference is that I don’t see any reason why they should have to or why it should be your, mine or Sheehan’s business.
[/quote]
It’s not that punitive measures should be taken against those who speaks out in support of the war or the President. Why wouldn’t they want to do something about what they believe in? Isn’t that the honorable thing to do?
[/quote]
Again, it’s their personal choice and not yours or anybody else’s business. Are you personally involved and dedicating your life to every single cause you beleive in. There are many issues. We all can’t be committed to all the ones we favor. That’s why we’ve formed a representative society and democracy. That’s the whole point of a system of government.
I think you’ve made a ridiculous argument. By the exact same logic if a person favors public education they should have to become a teacher in the public schools. If you favor medicare, you should become a provider of health services. If you favor school lunch programs, you should go and cook.
Should a school teacher in the public school system quit and go to Iraq just because they think the war in Iraq is justified.
Also think about the converse of your statement. If you are against the war, shouldn’t you go over there and help the insurgents?
If I asked such a question you should rightfully deride and dismiss me, but that’s the same kind of argument you are suggesting.
[/quote]
Those who are opposed to the war can find other ways to serve their country, support the troops and their families, bring the war to an end, promote peace in the Middle East and human rights everywhere.
[/quote]
One can support the war and do those things to.
Thank you for that.
I think you have every right to sit the fence and not know you’ve decided.
Me too. I hope you start a thread to tell us how your son is doing and to give us updates. If you are willing to find out if there are any creature comforts he and his unit might need, an SDMB support group might be a good idea. I have an old MP3 player which I could send, some old cameras and film, sunglasses, batteries.
I think it would be cool if we could help out, and I know even my buddy elucidator would be willing to throw in some revolutionary pamphlets. 
CosmicRay:
I’ve enjoyed talking to you, and when you make points, I generally follow your logic and understand. Truth is, you’ve lost me. What you’re offering me to prove your conspiracy theory is just your personal interpretation. It looks to me as if this is pulled out of thin air every bit as much as my Pokemon hypothesis. Even, if it’s not, you haven’t posted anything that differentiates it, other than the idea that I’m supposed to accept your personal judgement founded on your observation.
We’ve reached an impasse. Either I need to see something concrete and logical detailing and supporting your hypothesis specifically, or I think I really can’t be reasonably expected to give it serious consideration.
I thought it was a fair inference to say you’re dismissive of those questions. You went to moderate lengths to enumerate the shifting claims of George W. Bush regarding US goals in Iraq. It seems to me almost insultingly dismissive of Ms. Sheehan and those she represents to repeat that litany in response and to then say the questions are “junk”.
It’s not that anyone doesn’t know what Mr. Bush has claimed. It’s that a growing percentage (more than half of the public, if polls are accurate) think he’s lying. And I’m not sure, frankly, of their expectations regarding that. I suspect many people aren’t so much interested in the truth as they want to see Mr. Bush forced to choke a bit on his own lies. (Me, I’m for the truth all the way, but the voting public… well on the whole they never do seem to enjoy it all that much.)
[Vizzini]Only a great fool could believe our actions in Iraq have promoted any of those things you’ve mentioned. I am not a great fool, so clearly I cannot trust the reasons placed in front of me. But George Bush must know that I am not a great fool, so clearly I cannot trust the reasons he keeps to himself.[/Vizzini]
And the public’s just getting warmed up…
That’s hardly dismissive. Did you see the size of that post of mine?
I have nothing but sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan. I’m not insulting her to say her questions are junk. I’m not even insulting her questions. There is no insult intended, nor can one reasonably be inferred. I am commenting on the quality of her statements and arguments. In no way is my disagreement with her a personal insult. I’m surprised you would suggest otherwise. Do you really think that to disagree or think someone has made a bad argument is equivalent to insulting them? I think her arguments statements and questions are surprisingly bad considering the attention she’s received for them.
I have not seen a poll saying what percentage of the populace believe Bush is lying. I would like to.
No matter.
What you’re saying really doesn’t make sense. If they think he’s lying, why do they keep asking the same questions? What good does repeating oneself do?
Ok, you and others think he’s lying about the reasons. The logical question for me to ask are:
-On what specific evidence do you found this belief?
-If the stated reasons are lies, what do you suppose specifically are the real reasons that he’s keeping secret?
I’ve asked these kind of questions in this very thread. So far all I’m getting are vague and subjective conspiracy theories.
As for people that just want to see Bush choke on his lies, I think they are being unbelievably selfish and stupid. The war in Ira is bigger than their personal hatred of Bush.
I guess there can only be one response to this:
[The Man in Black]Truly you have a dizzying intellect.[/The Man in Black]
Actually, that was Joan Baez.
I’m glad for the chance to look at her actual words. I understand what you’re saying. Looking at her rhetoric from a more logical and detached point of view is different. What surprises me is that you are offended and insulted by Cindy’s questions and refer to them as simple minded but not outraged by the actions of Bush and friends. I find it a hell of a lot easier to forgive an emotional rant by a grieving mother than I do lies and polititical manipulation of a president and his cabinet at the expense of soilders lives.
A few years ago impeachment was attempted because a president lied about his sex life. What do you think would be appropriate now? I’m not really in favor of any impeachent attempt although I think they deserve it. What I’d like to see is the voters in this country being so pissed that they let our leaders know in clear language that everyone who supports this president will be out of office at the next election. Not realistic I know, but gosh the thought makes me smile.
A nice thought except that from the evidence I’ve seen this president didn’t really want a free and Democratic Iraq. He wanted a goverment that appeared democratic that was dependent on and cooperative with US military and economic interests. I think his actions to accomplish this goal has only increased bitterness and resentment and prolonged our military presence there. This translates into more lives lost.
The other four goals might be seen as genuine goals but since the primary goal is tainted and less than honest I can’t see how the others can be accomplished.
Repeating simpleminded questions so Bush can repeat pat answers doesn’t do anybody any good.
I agree with you here. What’s the point of asking questions you know won’t be answered honestly if at all? I find it more useful to simply state that he lied and is no longer worthy of the trust of the citizens of this country.
I’d be interested in hearing what you think the good questions are.