Re: Sheehan tells it like it is!

and i don't have time for such nonsense.

the congression vote was not for war. look into it & stop repeating right wing talking points.

The intelligence community had some opposing views...DU pursuit.

??? are you contending that one reason for our invasion was related to DU? what, we had too much stockpiled and needed to seed it somewhere else? i cannot take you seriously any longer.

The administration chose to error on the side of caution

it would be a funny stmt, mr. comedian, if so much blood hadn't been spilled & so much destruction wrought over a pretense based on lies.

...Tenant, made it very clear that he and his experts studied all of the data, and presented a conclusion to the President that fit the litmus test relevant to the post 9-11 world.

it's too convoluted, vet. people want simple one liners. maybe something like this: "u.s. intelligence". it keeps 'em rolling every time.

Mrs. Sheehan asserts that the majority of America is behind her when in fact they are not.

a fact is a piece of objective information that can be proven to be true. we cannot know w/ certainty what the "majority" feel, which delves into emotion anyway, dealing w/ issues of subjectivity and not objectivity. but we can make inferences based on statistical data. that doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it can be used to disprove. cindy's position is that the war on iraq was both wrong & badly handled. usually when someone uses the term "majority" they are refering to a majority consensus. thus, an issue gaining support of more than those not in support, as in greater than 50% in favor of something, is considered majority support. not always fair, perhaps, but majority consensus. since you cite the polls as backing your extrapolations, i shall point out to you that more than 50% of the polled public shares the same position of cindy sheehan - specifically, that this war on iraq is both wrong & badly handled.

look for yourself --

Now that you have attempted to make it relevant to the discussion, I will research your source documents and provide an opinion.

if you can do this, not the sharing your opinion part of it, but actually research it, and not filtered though any polarizing political lens of any magnitude, then maybe some good will come of this whole interaction.

re - they can say whatever they want. what matters is their actions. put into place a structure to target & mobilize a certain segment of web users. they're hardly effective, or seriously interesting, at anti-war mobilizing, they are all about the benjamins & preserving the two party hoax under 'progressive' rhetoric. if you think it's a smear to associate cindy w/, you go right ahead. everybody wants to be in on something when the excitement's there. we'll see where's "anti-war" position evolves to. their support of dean should be one obvious measure of their intent.

on npr -
They provide a source, provide minimal opinions or views, and let the listener develop their own opinion.

if it was straight-up, out & out propaganda, like the dod briefings :), then it wouldn't fly. like all good propaganda, there's a lot of truth & fact in there. the problem arises in the framing. you say "they provide a source", which is always a good thing. but when we take a look at their sourcing, that's where the ideological framing aspect comes in.


and then ask yourself why they call it national "public" radio. when you're only presented a narrow spectrum of information about any particular issue, you can hardly develop a useful opinion outside of that narrow context.

Mrs. Sheehan has placed herself in the public view by her own actions. I'm not smearing her, but merely countering her comments

well, read your orig post again. here, i'll help point out the smear tactics:

first, the setup -

Now it's been widely under-reported that President Bush has already met with Mrs. Sheehan (along with numerous other grieving families who lost loved ones honoring their oath and sacrificing honorably). Mrs. Sheehan walked away from that meeting having nothing but glowing comments for the President and his "genuine concern". Four months later, her tune has changed. Why?

attempt number one

Could it be that she has become a mouthpiece for MOVEON.ORG? Could it be that she is receiving financial support from multiple democratic party organizations?

translation: call her credibility into question by associating her w/ democratic party organizations.

attempt number two

You claim to be holding a 24/7 vigile at the ranch, but yet you spend your nights in a hotel

translation: mrs. sheehan is duplicitous and should not be trusted.

attempt number three

You claim that you're doing this in Casey's honor, but yet you show your true agenda with comments about "getting the US out of Israel([search])".

translation: mrs. sheehan is an anti-semite, beholden to the interests of the enemies of israel.

attempt number four

You call our Commander in Chief "a coward" during a time of war

translation: mrs. sheehan is a spiteful loony.

attempt number five

You assist CODEPINK.ORG in raising money for terrorists groups...

no translation needed

attempt number six

you penly (sic) agree with their counter-recruiting effort

translation: mrs. sheehan hate america

attempt number seven

how can a mother belittle the death of her son?

translation: mrs. sheehan is a selfish, ideologically-driven woman who disrespects everything i stand for.

or, to rephrase your own sentiment, "If you haven't given birth to a child, nurtured him, and watched him grown up, only to see his life snuffed out in the service of a questionable venture, please don't attempt to counter comment on this because it's an idea that is difficult to understand unless you've experience the gift of life, and valued it honorably."

and questioning her credibility

credibility is built on a handful of qualities - competence, intention, person impression, character, & association - and any effort to persuade others of reason to deride someone of these qualities requires credibility on the part of the accusor. your ability to persuade others is contigent upon others judging that you have personal credibility and your being able to use logical reasoning to support your position. so, despite a considerable investment of words & time, i'm back to my original advice, "you aren't very convincing."

Why am I questioning her credibility? Becuause she claims to speak on behalf of the military troops and their families.

this is a lie. she has claimed no such thing. but if it makes you feel better...

As a military troop from a military family ... I can flatly say that she does not speak for me.

that's obvious. you swore an oath to obey authority. it's got to be uncomfortable to be in that position where you find out that most everything command tells you is bs.

Your last paragraphs speak volumes about you and your beliefs.

cool. you're either open to auto suggestion, not surprising for authoritarian mindset, or flattering me by repeating the phrases i ended my previous posting & satirising my tone. or, forbid the thought, this is another playground tactic along the lines of "i'm rubber & you're glue...". let me take a look at my "last paragraphs" to get an ideal of what you are seeing about me & my beliefs.

fourth paragraph from the end, wherein i summarize the following:

it's striking that, having ommitted the context of cindy's vigil, you attempt to smear her as a liar w/ a trivial semantic squabble over what constitutes a "hotel". yet you completely let the larger, and lethal, lies go unchallenged. what is this noble cause, gwb? why do the downing street minutes say your admin was fixing the facts around policy in order to provide rational for first strike aggression against a sovereign nation? there's no comparison & you look silly pushing propaganda of this sort.

well, let's see. evidently, i don't tolerate hypocrisy & i prefer to work from w/i the context of the issue-at-hand, no matter how far away from the real questions it has been spun, hence my qualifying your position as both "silly" and propagandist. nothing worrying there.

let's move to the third from last paragraph, wherein i again express a desire to stay on topic. nothing too revealing there.

how about the penultimate paragraph, worthy of restating:

the remaining ad hominems in that paragraph belie an ignorance & mindset that reveals most of what any reader needs to know about the purpose of your little polemic, completely sidestepping real issues w/ no evidence displayed of a grasp of either fact or reality as they apply to this event. imo, either a usefool idiot for fascist rightwing types, or a bumbling propagandist of some sort. you have clarified nothing of the sort that you imagine to be so, though your words speak volumes to those paying attention.

not sure what you are infering from that. i've tried to be blunt and upfront about my read of your efforts.

as for the final two thoughts, not much masked there either. both are couched w/i the context of the greater issue, that being one involving military personnel. stan goff is an impactful thinker & we would all be remiss to discount him simply b/c of his personal history. a large portion of his audience also comes from a military background.

the vfp comment is also on target w/i a military context. as a soldier, you have been programmed in ways that are not very compatible w/ living in actual communities. for instance, you refered to yourself as a "troop", whereas any normal person not indoctrinated w/ self-effacing jargon would simply say you are a person/human being/brother/friend/guy/etc... when it comes down to it, the final military solution, their problem-solving skill, is to kill in a conflict of interest. this is not a sustainable way to keep living. so when i suggest you check out a vfp chapter, its b/c the shared experiences of all veterans is something not to be overlooked. as you alluded to, those who have never worn the uniform cannot begin to understand. well, vfp is nothing but veterans who do understand. check 'em out.

finally, i can't let this one slide by

You have offered little in the way of opinions about Mrs. Sheehan's post, and you have little insight into your views on her cause (or the war itself).

vet, i don't usually bother w/ opinion. i prefer explanations. an explanation is a factual description of how things work or why certain actions are taken. your post was strictly uninformed opinion, w/ no insight into why cindy sheehan is in crawford, texas. far be it from me to try to enlighten you w/ insight into either the consciousness of cindy or what is going on wrt your invasion of iraq. it is obvious, to the extent that you've commented on imc, that you aren't truly interested in possessing such knowledge at this moment. (and it won't come from me.) have fun, but don't take those rightwinger talking points (like "silent majority") too literally.

Account Login

Media Centers


An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.
-- Mark Twain
Source: "Glances at History" (suppressed)

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software