Re: Sheehan tells it like it is!

"First of all, I don't have time for such nonsense" ... But yet you go on a multi-page rant which did little more than provide insight into some conveluded viewpoints drawn from very little logic/fact.

"The Congressional vote was not for war": I've provided the link to the resolution and a link to Congress' role in declaring war. You are wrong.

"Are you contending that one reason for the invasion was DU".: Well, yes I am because I took the time to read the resolution passed by our elected representatives. You are wrong.

In response to your comment "It would be a funny stmt if so much blood hadn't been spilled ...": This is an emotions based comment that completely misses the point. In a post 9-11 climate, we looked at everything different. The intelligence community, much like any other office or branch serving in an advisory role, collected and analysed the information. It was presented to the politicians and to the public, and as a colelctive group a decision was made.

"it's too convoluted, vet. people want simple one liners. maybe something like this: "u.s. intelligence". it keeps 'em rolling every time.": Again, no counter argument on your part, but merely the implication that 'us dumbasses in middle America aren't smart enough to formulate our own opinions'.

"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.": Sir or ma'am, I'm assuming that since you call Mrs. Sheehan "Cindy" that you know her in some personal, initmate way so I'm glad you've clarified her stance. The current poll numbers are conveluded at best as it shows that the majority of Americans do NOT support removing troops, although a majority do disagree with the original decision to send troops knowing what we know now about Iraq's WMD capabilities. So, against, your assertion that the majority of Americans support Mrs. Sheehan's position, you are wrong.

"look for yourself (at the Downing Street memos)-- 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.": Wow, you really are an elitest, and a hypocritical one at that. Do you believe that your views are based solely on facts, and not some preconcieved hatred for a political party or some third and fourth hand reports of a war? I'm continuing to research your source documents, which will take some more time, as I'm trying to read and understand the entire document instead of what points best fir my argument (... you should try that some time).

"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.": Wow, your original posting said flatly that was not involved in the anti-war movement. I'm starting to notice a trend that when your postings are proven wrong then you move on to a broader argument in an effort to avoid the obvious fact that you were wrong.

"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 your sources do not represent your interests or ideologies? Sir or ma'am, you seem to imply that NPR is not an acceptable source of information, yet you offer up some extremly slanted information sources. I would hope that we all temper the information we receive with a little logic. I'm not sure how to counter your point because I believe that you offer no point.

"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. (YES, I'M CALLING HER CREDIBILITY INTO QUESTION BECAUSE I BELIEVE HER ACTIONS ARE POLITICALLY AND FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED.)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. (YES, YOU ARE CORRECT.)
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. (YES, BECAUSE IT FURTHER EMBOLDENS HER POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS.)attempt number four
You call our Commander in Chief "a coward" during a time of war translation: mrs. sheehan is a spiteful loony. (NO, BUT SHE IS CALLING OUR PRESIDENT A 'COWARD' DURING A TIME OF WAR. YOU'RE THINKING TOO MUCH.)attempt number five
You assist CODEPINK.ORG in raising money for terrorists translation needed (THAT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T OFFER ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH ACTIONS.)attempt number six you penly (sic) agree with their counter-recruiting effort translation: mrs. sheehan hate america (NO, MRS. SHEEHAN SUPPORTS THE COUNTER-RECRUITING EFFORT WHICH FURTHER UNDERMINES HER CREDIBILITY. HER SON VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE, OPENLY SUPPORTED THE WAR PRIOR TO HIS DEATH, AND HIS MOTHER NOW FIGHTS AGAINST THE VERY ENTITY THAT HER SON CHOSE TO SERVE IN.)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. (MRS. SHEEHAN IS BELITTLEING THE DEATH OF HER SON BY FIGHTING AGAINST THE CAUSE THAT HE WAS WILLING TO LAY HIS LIFE ON THE LINE 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." (YOU MAKE A VALID POINT.) 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.": (I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE BLINDED BY SOME INLAID HATRED OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. I DON'T NEED TO CONVINCE YOU OF MY VIEWPOINTS, BUT PLEASE DON'T THINK THAT BIG WORDS ARE BOLSTERING YOUR OPINIONS.)

I wrote, 'Why am I questioning her credibility? Becuause she claims to speak on behalf of the military troops and their families.' You responded with "this is a lie. she has claimed no such thing. but if it makes you feel better...": Obviously you cannot scroll up so here's an excerpt from the newswire posting: "Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game." In the 15 months I served, no one was holding me hostage. I am a volunteer in an all-volunteer military.

"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.": Oh yes, everything from my military commanders is BS. Sir or ma'am, you do not understand the cornerstone of an effective military fighting force.

"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 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.": Sir or ma'am, much is 'silly' in your postings, but you wrognly assume that restating your previous comments support your views. It does not.

"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.": So if I don't agree with you, I'm push some facist agenda. You're a hypocrite.

"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.": I'll refer you to my previous comments about being part of a community, a National Guard soldier (or citizen-soldier), etc. You have sterotyped yourself into a corner, and your point carries little, if any, weight. You wrongly assume that I'm some killing machine, inacapable of logical thought or decision-making. So if I were to assume that you are some tree-hugging, dope smoking, homosexual based on some of your political views) then I would be similar to you in your mindset.

"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." You continue to miss the point. The newswire story is the focal point for the counter comments. Additionally, you have run from every factual source and statistic and posted the vast majority of your comments within the context of emotions.

I'll close with this ... Mrs. Sheehan does not speak on behalf of or represent military families as she so claims. Her supposed vigil is being financed by an anti-war, anti-republican movement that is nor representative of the majority. The war is not illegal, as she claims, based on the Congressional votes and the powers described in the Constistution. The war was not a "Bush administration" war based on the Congressionl vote and the powers described in the Constitution. These facts are not in dispute, and I hope that my lack of big words makes them no less persuasive.

Mrs. Sheehan is claiming yto speak on our behalf. Here's a comment from the posting above (just in case you can't scroll up) ... "Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game." In the 15 months I served, no one was holding me hostage. I am a volunteer in an all-volunteer military.



"I never, ever got up here and said I speak for every single Gold Star family. I speak for every single military family. I've never said that. But I know I speak for thousands of them," she explained. "I know we speak for thousands of them when we want to know what is the noble cause our children died for. What is the noble cause they are still fighting for and dying for every day?"

you make way too many assumptions, vet, which is probably why you are trying to argue from an impossible position & having to resort to everything but the context of why cindy really was in crawford. it's really amazing that you would focus so much antagonism toward one mom, yet blindly allow open crimes to be committed in your & mine name. you'd rather call me names, project your own warped fantasies onto me, and protect your own ego than to actually comprehend what really is going on around you. instead you seek to villify others rather than seek answers. this is not some sophmoronic assumption on my part, as it is openly available for anyone to examine throughout the course of your posts on this site.

another blow to your self-imagined credibility

"Are you contending that one reason for the invasion was DU".: Well, yes I am because I took the time to read the resolution passed by our elected representatives. You are wrong. [emphasis mine]

another lie. tell me where, in the resolution, any reference to depleted uranium is mentioned.

Congressional Resolution on Iraq

or is there another resolution that you are thinking of?

i would expect that you should know what du is and how it comes about. the only du in iraq at that time is ours, from '91.

re your tendency to slander

You wrongly assume that I'm some killing machine, inacapable of logical thought or decision-making.

you wrongly assume that assumption. recall that you were the one who stated that you fully support this war. this is what that support entails & you are irresponsible if you fail to check it out. there are costs for that support that you should be fully cognizant of b/c it is up to you and all of us to weigh those costs in order to be sure that they are justified. in essence, this is what cindy & others are asking questions about. you may think you know the answers; you're citations and stmts show otherwise. if you'd stop being so defensive for a while and quit making up these silly accusations, you might realize that those links lead to people who share some specific commonalities w/ you & from which everyone may benefit; a sentiment that truly is planted from w/i an emotional context. peace.

on hypocrisy

So if I don't agree with you, I'm push some facist agenda. You're a hypocrite.

hypocrite: n.
1. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

correct me if i'm wrong on your point, but it appears to me that you insinuate that it is i who "push some facist agenda". this demonstrates that you are using terms w/o knowing what the word means.

did you take offense to my link on the other thread where i cited the relevance of robert jackson's closing remarks @ nuremberg to your position that you signed an oath to the president of the united states and a chain of command? that was the landmark ruling wherein it was declared that aggressive war "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."? "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

now if you want to talk of hypocrisy, start there.

as for the concept of fascism, maybe these definitions will clarify what the term entails.

what is fascism?

and here's an illustrated example

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