Were we not talking about the POLITICS of whether or not Bush should meet with Ms Sheehan? I’d never defend Bush against charges of making “dumbass” policy moves, especially concerning the war in Iraq. About the only thing I agree with him on in that front is that it would be folly to pull our troops out now-- which is what Ms Sheehan wants.
That is the minority view in the US as a whole, too. Link (4th poll from the top).
That’s her mesage, and it simply isn’t in the cards. If Bush had lost the elecction, there would still be as many troops over there as there are now, and it’s unlikely we would be briing them home any sooner. She’s tilting at windmills on that account. With all due respect to agrieving mother, I say let her tilt all she wants, but it won’t make the windmill any less illusionary.
Hey, you’re the one who claimed that the “results” of Bush’s political decisions show he’s not a dumbass. I just provided a link that demonstrates otherwise.
What will happen if we pull out that is so much worse than what’s happening now? What will be the positive result of our staying?
Are you saying, right or wrong, thats how it is right now? That I can agree with. A Democrat might have changed things slightly but only slightly.
I have pretty serious doubts that staying will bring about any serious benificial change in that region. In fact I think our presence there only damages our position in the world, especially the middle east, and actually adds fuel to the fire of terrorism.
Is it just that we can’t yet admit we were wrong and there’s no way to win? We’re not yet convinced so we have to spend a few more billion dollars with defense contractors and lose a few thousand more lives before the truth becomes undeniable.
With the diference being that the hard-righties would be attacking Kerry mercilessly for screwing up what had been a glorious, absolutely successful liberation, getting our people killed wholesale through his incompetence and waffling, yet with the only possible solution they see being to be to send everybody there who’d ever seen a uniform to finish off the bastards.
Kerry’d be painted by the talk-show/blog yammerers, and their quoters on this board, as the most disastrous President since Carter - but with the same facts in hand as they’re currently using to defend Dear Leader (and blame the Democrats anyway).
Time to update the Sixties anti-LBJ White-House-protest chant. How about this:
Fuck you, Double Yew,
How many will die before you’re through?
The point was that even with Kerry in the White House we would likely still be losing lives daily in Iraq. Perhaps he would have handled some things differently. MAybe they could have elected leaders of their own choosing insterad of ours. I doubt he’d have the Nads to say, “We were wrong. I’m bringing our soilders home”
No doubt - but perhaps not at the same rate. If you accept that the bombers are most likely thinking that force is the only language we understand, it could well be that showing some flexibility and understanding might be effective.
I see no reason to doubt that he would have taken the general approach he laid out in his campaign.
They’re doing that anyway, or about to. The “leader of ‘our’ choosing” was Chalabi, remember? Theleaders they’re on the verge of picking are Shiite mullahs, under a constitution which allows the Kurds to secede.
It isn’t about nads, it’s about brains and hearts.
Fortunately, it’s much easier to say “George Bush was wrong. I’m brining our soldiers home.” Bush will never admit his own mistake, and won’t take any action to end the folly until he has no other viable options–at which point, his minions will blame everything on the Democrats.
The family and the husband are reacting to what she has been doing. The destructive actions are on her part, not theirs.
Appalling? Reprehensibile? And why/how is this so? Because I’m not joining in the lock-step, slobbering adoration being heaped on this woman by liberals? Because I’m willing to speak out and say that the emporer (empress, in this case) has no clothes? Or just because I’m conservative?
She’s either nuts or she’s not. If she is, she needs help. If she’s not, her attitude and actions are the appalling and reprehensible ones.
It’s been almost 24 hours now since I first asked you for a cite for your assertion that Mrs. Sheehan is going to profit from books, TV, movies about her situation and her son’s death, but I must have missed your answer.
Since you also seem to have some inside information, who is paying her to be there in Texas? Please provide cites.
So this notion that she’s doing this on her own dime should be laid to rest. She’s getting lots of help. Not that that is wrong, mind, just that it ought to be known.
Doubtful. I don’t think anything less than a planned exit would change the violence but what the hey, your guess is as good as mine.
really?? I can’t tell if that’s more hopeful than naive or the other way around.
My impression was that when Chalabi became a poor choice we went to plan B. but still our plan not theirs.
Suit yourself. He wouldn’t have had the brains or the heart. When I said nads i didn’t mean machismo. I meant the courage of your convictions versus the cowardess that goes with political expediency.
No, you showed that his POLICY decsions produced bad results. If you want to argue that the Iraq war was all about politics (ie, gaining and maintaining power), then that’s a debatable proposition. Not a proposition that stands up to much scrutiny, but still something we could debate. Is that your proposition?
So let’s also lay to rest the notion that she is “being paid” to be there. She is not the tool of these groups. She recieved some help in getting her message out, but by no means was she ever a shill for some big money people. In fact, she now has specifically repudiated that help so that her message and her goals are not subverted (or seen to be).
Then what do you think is the primary motivation for the violence? Simply our presence, not our actions? I suspect you give the insurgents too little credit.
So you think Kerry would be simply chanting “Stay the course, hard work, war against terrah, the lessons of 9/11” just like Bush is? You don’t think it likely that he’d be using the benefit of the doubt with the world community, that anybody else but Bush would have, to try to hand this mess off to the UN? Why do you think so?
And “our” Plans B and on have all been rejected by the people we want to decide for themselves. Remarkable, ain’t it?
What in Kerry’s background makes you think that? I’m genuinely curious.
If we left, Iraq would certainly descend into a true civil war (what we have now ain’t even close to a civil war), with the country splitting into at least 3 parts. The Sunni Arab part would be a hell hole of terrorism focused as much on the outside world as on the rest of Iraq. The Kurdish north could possibly ignite wars in Turkey and/or Iran and those ethinic Kurds make moves to form a greater Kurdistan. The Shi’a south would fight to regain control of the rest of the country. We’d be talking large, pitched battles with armies, not guerilla tactics like we have now. How’s that for much worse…?
Yes. We screwed things up, but leaving would screw them up a lot more.
I don’t know that “there’s no way to win”. Extremely difficult, yes, but the stakes are very, very high.
The article also says she wants these groups to help less so the message doesn’t get lost and she’d like the media to focus on the message and not the messenger.
As you say, there’s nothing wrong with whatever help these groups are giving her. Right Wing shills are trying to paint this association as some how making the message less important. They’re full of crap.
I never said she was a tool or shill for anybody. However, she is getting financial support from liberal and antiwar groups. Is she getting rich? I doubt it, but this protest of hers does cost money, and some people are stepping up to see that it continues.
You shouldn’t mischaracterize my cites as saying she’s not being paid, when she clearly is. And again, that’s perfectly fine. People should own up to that fact, though.
There was some speculation earlier that this effort by Cindy Sheehan is entirely self-financed. It’s clear that it is not, which means that this is bigger than just a single woman engaged in lone protest.
As an elected government official, that’s part and parcel of his duties. And as a citizen of the United States, she’s certainly part of his constituency and is ultimately held to be answerable to her (and every other citizen).
He knew the job was dangerous when he took it. Just because his handlers want to shield him from the critics doesn’t mean he’s allowed to dismiss them.
I did not mischaraterize your cites; it says nowhere in there that she is being paid.
The only phrase that I see that come close it “financially underwritten”, but the story then goes on to show that the media events were sponsored by organizations.
I see no reference to her being given a stipend or salary for her presence in Texas. (the Mail & Guardian page won’t load, btw) If anything, you are mischaraterizing your own cites by insisting that she is being paid. The one that I am able to call up says nothing of the sort.
I also never said that you called her a tool or a shill. Others have.