Cindy - Anti War Mom

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (WA4ABM @ June 18 2006,10:09)]http://i5.tinypic.com/14uky03.jpg

The grinning idiot clinging to Je$$e Jack$on is Cindy Sheehan...
That's a grin? Looks more like she's....well, nevermind but I remember changing diapers after the kids made similar expressions.

[W6ECE]

Very Well Done. Thank You.

Bernie

[wa6ccw]

Cindy Sheehan is scum.

Thanks for the vivid presentation and the reminder.

[KD5SHW]

This is the voice and the face of the antiwar movement. #Remember this as our own senators and representatives are undermining the military in a time of war. #I'm also noticing some disturbing similarities in redirect between the antiwar folks and the terrorist videos shown on Al Jazeera.

The unmarked grave is horrible. The way she treats the memory of her son and the cause he died for is. Stuff like this tests my belief in free speech.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]For the first year after Casey was killed, I didn't want to believe it. I didn't want to place a TOMBstone on my son's grave. I didn't want one more marble proof that my son was dead. I couldn't even call where he was buried a "cemetery," I had to call it "Casey's Park." I placed fresh flowers in the cup every week and journaled there almost on a daily basis, and often laid on it and fell asleep and dreamed of my needlessly killed son.

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehangrave.asp)

First off, the father is the one in charge of getting it made.

I'm sure you all are in position to judge a woman who lost her son as he served America.

Something your Mother will never incur


How could "people" be so screwed up to politicize and attack someone who lost her son in a War that she and most Americans know was wrong. # His Grave is NONE OF THEIR #BUSINESS.

[KF0RT]

That's a woman?

73, Rob

[KD5SHW]

Quote[/b] ]How could "people" be so screwed up to politicize and attack someone who lost her son in a War that she and most Americans know was wrong. #

I'm sorry. #I could have sworn that she politicized the death of her son. #Maybe I'm imagining all of her protesting. I'm sure I just dreamed up the scene she made at the State of the Union address.

We had an election between now and the start of the war. #The same person is in power. #I think its a bit of a stretch to say that most Americans think the war is wrong.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]I think its a bit of a stretch to say that most Americans think the war is wrong.

Given that around 60% of Americans now believe sending troops into Iraq was a mistake, Sheehan is neither in the minority, nor being "anti-American".

Most of this country understands the difference between supporting our troops and supporting a war. So if there is a valid reason for being in Iraq, and a valid plan to execute now that we're there, that is the message war supporters need to convey instead of the "Cindy Sheehan hates America and disrespects her son's memory" politics.

Quote[/b] ]In the Gallup Poll, 56% say the Iraq war wasn't "worth it," essentially matching the high-water mark of 57% a month ago.

• Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited are fraudulent claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the number of people killed and wounded; and the belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.

• Of the 42% who say the war was worth it, the top reasons cited are the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the need to stop terrorism and a desire to end the oppression of the Iraqi people.




I just can't believe the 42%. September 11 when even Bush admitted there was no connection. Opression of the Iraqui people? Yea right that is what Bush turned too after he was WRONG about WMD's.

[KD5SHW]

I'm not one for running a war by polls, but if I must:
New Poll (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12238) shows that it is 51% which is within the margin of error.There is, of course, only one poll that counts. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/) Please forgive me, but I love rubbing that in people's faces. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Quote[/b] ] Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited are fraudulent claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the number of people killed and wounded; and the belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.
..

Yea right that is what Bush turned too after he was WRONG about WMD's.

Let's not try to rewrite history. Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs. They had good reason. His opponent in the election of 2004 believed it having seen the same evidence. All of the major intelligence agencies in the world believed it. He had used WMDs before. So to say that Bush was lying is a little dishonest. Bush and Congress made the decision using the intelligence that was available at the time.

I'll agree that the WMDs were the most hyped part about the call to war, but are obvious benefits to the war on terrorism. We are implementing a democratic government. We are building infrastructure.

We are building an education system in the country. Education is our biggest ally in the war on terrorism. Educated people are far less likely to be brainwashed into strapping a bomb to their body. The good things that we do for the Iraqi people will demonstrate that we are not the 'great satan' that the Islamic fundamentalists would have them believe.

Let's not forget that the man that we took out of power was a terrorist who was responsible for the deaths of thousands. To say that the war in Iraq is not related to the war on terrorism is to ignore the causes of terrorism and what we are doing to change Iraq.

[al2n]

You guys forget that Sheehan likes to frequent rallies put on by the Communist party.

Seems she is the one who made a political issue of her sons death.

Do you think that her son, someone who VOLUNTEERED for service would be proud to know that his mom is using his image to support the Communist party?

Linky to video- 7mb download (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/part_2/rcpleader.mov)

Photo log of the rally (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/part_2/)

There is another video clip on that page where Cindy claims that no terrorists have been killed in Iraq.

Hmm, wonder what she calls them? Freedom fighters perhaps?

The far left could have made a far better in the choice of poster child.

[WA4ABM]

Checking with Snopes.com makes it even more interesting"

Sheehan said:
"We had a Casualty Officer who abandoned us when our mortuary refused to pay the cemetery and told us that the "government sent the money to the mortuary, so now it is your problem. You may have to sue the mortuary."

The owner of the mortuary, Steve Nadeau, disputed this statement:

Steve Nadeau, the mortuary's owner, said that not only did he properly pay the cemetery, but that he subsidized the process with his own money.

Nadeau expressed hurt and disbelief at Sheehan's comments. He said that the amount of money the military gave the mortuary for Casey's funeral service and cemetery arrangements didn't even come close to covering the costs.

"Several kind citizens made donations," said Nadeau. "I absorbed the rest."

This was not the only way in which he went above and beyond his responsibilities following Casey's death, said Nadeau. He also provided a stretch limousine and a driver at his expense, he said, and invited the family to go to the airport with him so that he could accompany them. None of this was required, said Nadeau.

"Having known the Sheehan family for many years through St. Mary's Catholic Church where Ms. Sheehan had previously been the youth director, it was my desire to provide care and dignity to Casey and the family. I did this in every respect."

Nadeau also refuted Sheehan's statement that the mortuary finally paid the cemetery only after the family threatened to bring the story to the media.

"This never happened," said Nadeau. "I would stop by the family home as I do most families' homes and check with them on necessary needs, etc."

(The above info is directly from snopes.com) Maybe they can't be trusted either.

I really have not been in the bashing business, but I couldn't resist this one. Forgive me, but when people show a lack of integrity in whatever cause they espouse, then they are open for criticism, especially those in public life. I have admired many people who have held views very different from mine. I admire them, not for their views, but for their integrity and consistency. I try to understand various viewpoint in politics, religion, social issues, etc., but when it becomes obvious that one's life does not match what one says then it disgust rather than admiration. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[n9yb]

I'm sure you all are in position to judge a woman who lost her son as he served America.

Something your Mother will never incur

How do you know what my Mother has incurred?

Who is making assumptions and judging?

[w4glm]

What Church does the Rev. (used loosely) Jackson pastor?

Or is the Church of Ill Will?

Inquiring minds wonder.....Mac

[KB3LIX]

This woman, makes me ASHAMED to have to share the same last name !!!


She is an embarrassment to the Clan Sheehan !

[WA4ABM]

I think he is still the leader of "The Rainbow Coalition" and depends on gifts, grants, etc.

[KB3LIX]

Quote[/b] (w4glm @ June 18 2006,21:19)]What Church does the Rev. (used loosely) Jackson pastor?

Or is the Church of Ill Will?

Inquiring minds wonder.....Mac
The Church of 'How much can I steal today' !

[wv6z]

Quote[/b] (KB3LIX @ June 17 2006,19:32)]Quote[/b] (w4glm @ June 18 2006,21:19)]What Church does the Rev. (used loosely) Jackson pastor?

Or is the Church of Ill Will?

Inquiring minds wonder.....Mac
The Church of 'How much can I steal today' !
Oh, so he has moved from the First Church of Pissing and Moaning in Greenville, SC now has he?

[W7WV]

I heard that she is now in Canada supporting deserters from the US military. Nobody likes to lose a son/daughter or a friend to war.
Those that ran to Canada during the RVN conflict were cowards in my opinion.
The churches and politicians looking for votes gave them amesty. I remember 3 that showed their faces at a class reunion that we had pictures of dead vets from Viet Nam posted as we were honoring them.
They made fun of the dead and those that served until we told them to leave. They refused to leave the function, we worked them over a bit and had them arrested for trespassing at the event.
Nobody has heard from them since that I know of.

[al2n]

Quote[/b] ]The people that are being killed in Iraq are not terrorists. They're citizens of Iraq, they're members of the human race. They're our brothers and sisters. And last year, I worked really hard to defeat George Bush. But you know what? He refuses to be defeated, because if he loses, he cheats. And so he cheated himself into a second term. And I wrote a letter on April -- I mean November 4th. You know, I took a day off -- I was very devastated, very depressed....

-Cindy Sheehan November 2nd, 2005

[w5klb]

http://i5.tinypic.com/14uky03.jpg

There just ain't enough alcohol or pills on the planet for a face like that.

I wonder if Ms. Cindy is going to "impress" the Reverend with "oratory skills"? Maybe he'll let her speak at a local A.M.E. church... you know... to get more "converts".

[KW4MW]

I've probably made as much fun of Cindy as anybody else on this forum. #

However , I've come to believe that the poor woman is not in a right frame of mind nor has she been for some time and that her instability preceded her son's death for quite some time. #

Please notice I said that is what I believe, it's an opinion. #I have absolutely no background in mental health sciences.

Cindy seems to be looking for answers to more questions that just her sons death. #Insecure and seeking personal validation, she has only ended up being reviled by the right and used by the left. #

I hope that she has few really good friends.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[KC0VWU]

Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?
Well now, let's just have a look... shall we:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm)

[KC0VWU]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 17 2006,23:37)]Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?
Well now, let's just have a look... shall we:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm)
I didn't say anything about the Democrats, they are as pathetic as Bush.

In the months before the invasion, all a person had to do was look at Bush's face and you could see he was lying. He lies every time he opens his mouth. So he's not only a moron, but he's a liar too.

I still can't believe that anyone voted for that idiot and I can't believe that so many people hate America enough to defend him.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:43)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 17 2006,23:37)]Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?
Well now, let's just have a look... shall we:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm)
I didn't say anything about the Democrats, they are as pathetic as Bush.
Oh really?

So, they are somehow excluded from the Quote[/b] ]everyone comment that you were previously Quote[/b] ]LMAO(ing) about, eh?

How convenient. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC0VWU]

I didn't exclude anyone. Please show me where I did.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:49)]I didn't exclude anyone. Please show me where I did.
Certainly:

Quote[/b] ]I didn't say anything about the Democrats, they are as pathetic as Bush.

[KW4MW]

VWU #Quote[/b] ]In the months before the invasion, all a person had to do was look at Bush's face and you could see he was lying. He lies every time he opens his mouth. So he's not only a moron, but he's a liar too.

I still can't believe that anyone voted for that idiot and I can't believe that so many people hate America enough to defend him.

Your deductive powers are awesome, I'm convinced. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KC0VWU]

Okay, read the entire sentence. Here, let me help you...

they are as pathetic as Bush.

As you can see, I consider them pathetic too.

[KC0VWU]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 17 2006,23:51)]VWU Quote[/b] ]In the months before the invasion, all a person had to do was look at Bush's face and you could see he was lying. He lies every time he opens his mouth. So he's not only a moron, but he's a liar too.

I still can't believe that anyone voted for that idiot and I can't believe that so many people hate America enough to defend him.

Your deductive powers are awesome, I'm convinced. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
There is nothing to "deduce." I am simply stating facts. If you choose to believe Bush's lies, that is up to you.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:52)]Okay, read the entire sentence. #Here, let me help you...

they are as pathetic as Bush.

As you can see, I consider them pathetic too.
Nice try, but no cigar, VWU.

Again, in response to:

Quote[/b] ]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMD

You said:

Quote[/b] ]You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?

It is quite clear, from the link I provided, that some major Washington heavyweights - both before and after GWB and including a former U.S. President - didn't see it as a

Quote[/b] ]load of crap.

Who you think is and isn't "pathetic" and who told "lies" and who didn't is another subject altogether.

[KC0VWU]

It is a load of crap now and it was then.

Where are the WMDs?

They don't exist.

Bush's lies = load of crap.

This isn't rocket science.

[wv6z]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d148/ku4my/icon_rolleyes.gif

[KD5SHW]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 18 2006,23:43)]
Quote[/b] ]I didn't say anything about the Democrats, they are as pathetic as Bush.

In the months before the invasion, all a person had to do was look at Bush's face and you could see he was lying. He lies every time he opens his mouth. So he's not only a moron, but he's a liar too.

I still can't believe that anyone voted for that idiot and I can't believe that so many people hate America enough to defend him.

So what secret method do you have to read faces and have the ability to discern lie from truth? I'm sure the rest of us would like to be let in on this secret.

Your argument, if you can call a string of cliche overused insults an argument, is that Bush is both an idiot and a liar. This seems a little inconsistent. He's an idiot yet he managed to fool the CIA, congress, UN, and several country's intelligence agencies with sources independent of the US. Remember that his face advertises that he is lying the whole time he's trying to pull this off. Doesn't make sense to me, but if it makes you feel better to dish out insults then go ahead. It's not like he's running for re-election.

[KC0VWU]

Oh - btw - I think Cindy Sheehan has her heart in the right place but I think she needs some help. Something isn't right with her, she's snapped I think.

[KC0VWU]

Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 18 2006,00:06)]So what secret method do you have to read faces and have the ability to discern lie from truth? I'm sure the rest of us would like to be let in on this secret.
Well, he has shifty eyes for one thing.

But lets look at the evidence for a moment. For example, here is a picture of Iraq's WMDs.














See? Nothing. A lie.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,00:37)]Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?
Well now, let's just have a look... shall we:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm)
WHat did the Democrats say? Well rhetoric never killed anyone nor cost us a trillion dollars. What did the Idiot BUSH do is what is important.


Quote[/b] ]
It's true that virtually everyone believed in 2002 that Saddam had an active WMD program or, at the very least, large stockpiles of existing WMD. But the Bush administration was repeating the exact same arguments about Saddam's WMD even in March 2003, when UN inspectors had been combing Iraq with the help of U.S. intelligence for three months and had found nothing. The evidence by that time suggested just the opposite of what we originally believed, but that prompted nothing from Bush supporters except heaps of abuse aimed at Hans Blix. The invasion went off as scheduled.

Quote[/b] ]
Even among people who believed Saddam had an active WMD program, there was little consensus that it actually posed a danger, something the administration never acknowledged. Even the CIA suspected Saddam would never use WMD unless he was attacked first, and in any case none of Saddam's weapons posed a realistic threat to the United States. The administration's absurd claims that Iraqi drones could attack the continental U.S. were debunked almost immediately by Air Force intelligence. Their dissent didn't make it into the public discourse until after the war, though.





Quote[/b] ]Administration figures continually made sensationalistic claims in public that went well beyond what they could back up with real evidence. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," Condoleezza Rice told Wolf Blitzer ominously a few days before Bush's UN speech in 2002. "We know where they are," Donald Rumsfeld asserted flatly about Iraqi WMD even after the war. "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government," Dick Cheney said repeatedly both before and after the war. Colin Powell told the UN that Saddam's bioweapons program was active, advanced, and an absolute certainty. "These are sophisticated facilities," he said. "For example, they can produce anthrax and botulinum toxin. In fact, they can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people."




Bush is a liar - he had an agenda to Invade Iraq and lied to the American people and congress which is a felony.

He should be and deserves to be impeached!!!Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007494.php)

[al2n]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 18 2006,22:11)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 18 2006,00:06)]So what secret method do you have to read faces and have the ability to discern lie from truth? #I'm sure the rest of us would like to be let in on this secret.
Well, he has shifty eyes for one thing.

But lets look at the evidence for a moment. For example, here is a picture of Iraq's WMDs.














See? Nothing. A lie.
I would post a photo of proof of Iraq's WMD's, but last time I did I was warned not to do so anymore.

Seems the sight of dead women and children upsets some people who insist that such weapons never existed.

Fact- Saddam did have WMD's

Fact- Saddam used them on his own people.

Fact- Saddam kicked UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for several years.

Fact- Saddam failed to comply with UN resolutions.

How is it that you guys are always all jolly for the UN, but you fail to realize that it is because of their resolutions that the US was able to invade Iraq in the first place?

As for Sheehan, you can praise her all you want. Just remember that you are standing up for a woman who priased the people who killed her son while at a rally sponsored by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_%28USA%29).

Read up on what this outfit stands for and ask yourself if you want to be associated with them.

[KC0VWU]

Nobody ever said he *never* had them. Of course he did. But did he have them immediately prior to the war? No.

[al2n]

Then what happened to them?

[KC0VWU]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ June 18 2006,01:42)]Then what happened to them?
Ask Rumsfeld, he said he knew where they were.

[al2n]

No, I am asking you.

You say they did not exist, then you say that they did, just not prior to the invasion.

So tell me, what happened to the WMD's that every major world leader (prior to the invasion) seemed to agree were in the pocession of Saddam?

[KC0VWU]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ June 18 2006,01:53)]So tell me, what happened to the WMD's that every major world leader (prior to the invasion) seemed to agree were in the pocession of Saddam?
That's exactly the point. They never existed. The Bush lie machine invented them in order to whip up enough hysteria to support his rush to war.

[al2n]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,00:03)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ June 18 2006,01:53)]So tell me, what happened to the WMD's that every major world leader (prior to the invasion) seemed to agree were in the pocession of Saddam?
That's exactly the point. They never existed. The Bush lie machine invented them in order to whip up enough hysteria to support his rush to war.
But didn't you just say:

Quote[/b] ]Nobody ever said he *never* had them. Of course he did. But did he have them immediately prior to the war? No.


Plus if you would take the time to look at all the quotes in the link CCW was kind enough to provide, you would see that such talk of WMD's was around LONG BEFORE BUSH EVER TOOK OFFICE.

How can the "Bush lie machine" as you put it have all these people talking about Iraq's WMD program long before he was elected?

Are you talking some vast conspiracy?

By the way, did you read the link about the Communist Party? Nice group of people Sheehan hangs out with, huh?

[KC0VWU]

A vast conspiracy? No, but as we all know, if you tell the same lie often enough, it becomes the truth. That is what Bush did. (Only it backfired on him and he was ultimately exposed as a liar.)

I don't care if she hangs out with Commies, that is her business. You see, this is America and you have the right to associate with anyone you want.

[al2n]

So how many times did you hear about those shifty eyes before you started to believe it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC0VWU]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ June 18 2006,02:59)]So how many times did you hear about those shifty eyes before you started to believe it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Honestly, I didn't like the man the second I laid eyes on him. He always looks like he is smirking and to me he gives off an aura of deceit. I really don't understand why that goes unnoticed.

I used to be a Republican btw but GW ruined that for me. I can't be a Democrat because of Clinton. I never vote for incumbents regardless of party or past accomplishments because I feel that they all end up being corrupt and the toilet must be flushed. So really, that leaves the Libertarians for me. sigh.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,00:37)]Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?
Well now, let's just have a look... shall we:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm)
I'm not a great fan of Sheehans, but quoting blogs as news is a joke. Since there is so much of it going on here I will in the near future feel no need to adhere to the higher standards of posting solely from news sites - unless I mention it in the link.

From now on, Liberals and Democrats should be adhering to those lower standards since the right feels no need to have any limitations on who they link to. BTW, quoting Clinton in 1998 means little. Things can change in a month let alone 3 years. Of course, never let the facts stand in the way of saying 'CLINTON DIDIT!!' That is unless you are saying Clinton was the one who briefed Bush and that's why he went to war in Iraq. While that is obviously not true, neither is much of what the right thinks we'll swallow.

[WA4ABM]

Most people these days know very little about history. This may help in understanding what we're up against.

A long read, but I think well worth it; especially for those who are trying to re-write history.

************************************************** **********************************

History

Here is a post from a California lawyer that seems to present the "Big Picture"" in just the right manner.. This is something all Americans should read!!

A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War:

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because NONE of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler - actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The European nations could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. The so-called "Coalition Forces" are, in most cases, little more than a "Token Force" to keep face with the US. And once attacked, like the train bombing in Madrid, they pull their forces and run for home. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons? And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again .... a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost over 2,300 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.] But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 1 hour TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain,and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean.

That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

[WA4ABM]

I have removed the original post because the second half of it no longer applies. Cindy had a gravestone put on her son's grave on May 25, 2006, according to snopes.com. Though it took two years and a lot of pressure, at least there's a grave marker there now.

Plus, this thread has morphed into something other than intended. I must, however, comment on those who "read" the President's face:

You can't judge a book by its cover.

Meaning:
You use this proverb to say that you can't tell what something/someone is really like just by looking at it. It might be different from what it looks.

If someone says, "You can't judge a book by its cover," he/she advises you not to judge someone or something only by its appearance.

People also say, "You can't tell a book by its cover."

Facial features and facial expressions are the results of heridity. One can change expressions, but it takes some deliberate work. I think that GWB has improved on the smirking look. What's a smirk to some is a smile to others. I have often "mis-read" people, but after getting to know them I have found that my earlier impressions were wrong. I was quite willing to change my opinion when I looked deeper than the surface.

Again, you can't judge a book by its cover.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N9XR]

http://okiedoke.com/pics/smirk.jpg
Well, ABM believes my crap.

[W2ILP]

You don't have to be a Mom or a Jackson to be anti-war.

w2ilp (I Like Peace)

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 19 2006,15:13)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,00:37)]Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?
Well now, let's just have a look... shall we:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm)
I'm not a great fan of Sheehans, but quoting blogs as news is a joke. #Since there is so much of it going on here I will in the near future feel no need to adhere to the higher standards of posting solely from news sites - unless I mention it in the link.

From now on, Liberals and Democrats should be adhering to those lower standards since the right feels no need to have any limitations on who they link to.
I can't speak for anyone that may have used material from a "blog".

In my post, I didn't use any quote(s) from a "blog". The page of #Quotes (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm) that I linked to was from the web site of talk show host Glenn Beck. Each one of the quotes on Beck's page has a Source link to go with it. While a few of the Source links are no longer active, the majority are from major news sources such as the Washington Post, CNN, USAToday, or the website of Kerry for President, the Senate Record, and so on.

[AC0H]

I believe My Friend Flicka was up in Canada over the weekend protesting the Canadian government's involvement in Afganistan and their so far refusal to give blanket political assylum to American deserters.

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,00:55)]Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 17 2006,23:51)]VWU #Quote[/b] ]In the months before the invasion, all a person had to do was look at Bush's face and you could see he was lying. He lies every time he opens his mouth. So he's not only a moron, but he's a liar too.

I still can't believe that anyone voted for that idiot and I can't believe that so many people hate America enough to defend him.

Your deductive powers are awesome, I'm convinced. #:laugh:
There is nothing to "deduce." I am simply stating facts. #If you choose to believe Bush's lies, that is up to you.

In the months before the invasion, all a person had to do was look at Bush's face and you could see he was lying. That's a pretty sweeping statement, not only is it untrue, its premise borders on the absurd.

He lies every time he opens his mouth. Another absurd statement.

So he's not only a moron, but he's a liar too. Well three for three - you obviously have an emotional issue with GWB and I'm not knocking that but if you want to present your side of the argument do it with facts instead of Striesand rhetoric.

I still can't believe that anyone voted for that idiot
Believe it - and go forward from there.

and I can't believe that so many people hate America enough to defend him. Again another illogical statement stemming from emotion instead of logic. Do you realize how absurd it is to say that the people that defend Bush hate America? Get a grip.

There is nothing to "deduce." Facts speak for themselves, Emotions only speak for self.

I am simply stating facts.No, you did not state a single fact. Each of your talking points was an emotional outburst; not a coherent, well thought out, researched and cross referenced remark. Contain your remarks to the real facts and your validity on this board will improve tremendously. Otherwise you will find yourself subject to constant ridicule and derision like a handful of other members that post here.

Getcher####together.

[W8EFA]

From MW

Quote[/b] ]you did not state a single fact. Each of your talking points was an emotional outburst; not a coherent, well thought out, researched and cross referenced remark.

Pot...Kettle...Black Here is the fact filled, coherent, well thought out researched and cross referenced post MW uses as an example.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, not only is it untrue, its premise borders on the absurd.

you obviously have an emotional issue - do it with facts instead of Striesand rhetoric.

Again another illogical statement stemming from emotion instead of logic. Do you realize how absurd it is to say that the people that defend Bush hate America? Get a grip.

Facts speak for themselves, Emotions only speak for self.


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KW4MW]

Here's a fact for ya'

EFA, like the rest of his ilk, prefer to take statements that are counter to their own shrill propaganda out of context and present them as facts. # #

If you're going to criticize me then you should at least have the decency to present the entire dialogue, not just the parts that you can cut and paste to support your own emotional diatribe. #

EFA - another fine example of Striesand styled rhetoric and rebuttal.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 19 2006,12:38)]Here's a fact for ya'

EFA, like the rest of his ilk, prefer to take statements that are counter to their own shrill propaganda out of context and present them as facts. # #

If you're going to criticize me then you should at least have the decency to present the entire dialogue, not just the parts that you can cut and paste to support your own emotional diatribe. #

EFA - another fine example of Striesand styled rhetoric and rebuttal.
Well Ok then.....

Quote[/b] ]That's a pretty sweeping statement, not only is it untrue, its premise borders on the absurd.

you obviously have an emotional issue - do it with facts instead of Striesand rhetoric.

Again another illogical statement stemming from emotion instead of logic. #Do you realize how absurd it is to say that the people #that defend Bush hate America? #Get a grip. #

Facts speak for themselves, Emotions only speak for self

VS
(differences)

Quote[/b] ]That's a pretty sweeping statement, not only is it untrue, its premise borders on the absurd.

Another absurd statement.

Well three for three - you obviously have an emotional issue with GWB and I'm not knocking that but if you want to present your side of the argument do it with facts instead of Striesand rhetoric.


Believe it - and go forward from there.

Again another illogical statement stemming from emotion instead of logic. #Do you realize how absurd it is to say that the people #that defend Bush hate America? #Get a grip. #

Facts speak for themselves, Emotions only speak for self.


There you are MW - THE WHOLE rambling opinion. #Not much difference, just trying to spare everyone the whole rambling by highlighting the main essence. #Actually the whole diatribe proves my point more. #Still don't see a single fact in your post lecturing someone else on what you consistently do. # #Hilarious

As usual long on opinions, feelings and name calling. #Short on facts.

[KW4MW]

EFA -Sorry - I'm still underwhelmed.

[KC4HGH]

Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ June 18 2006,16:14)]Quote[/b] (WA4ABM @ June 18 2006,10:09)]http://i5.tinypic.com/14uky03.jpg

The grinning idiot clinging to Je$$e Jack$on is Cindy Sheehan...
That's a grin? Looks more like she's....well, nevermind but I remember changing diapers after the kids made similar expressions.
Product(s) of inbreeding, no doubt....

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,10:40)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 19 2006,15:13)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,00:37)]Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?
Well now, let's just have a look... shall we:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm)
I'm not a great fan of Sheehans, but quoting blogs as news is a joke. Since there is so much of it going on here I will in the near future feel no need to adhere to the higher standards of posting solely from news sites - unless I mention it in the link.

From now on, Liberals and Democrats should be adhering to those lower standards since the right feels no need to have any limitations on who they link to.
I can't speak for anyone that may have used material from a "blog".

In my post, I didn't use any quote(s) from a "blog". The page of Quotes (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm) that I linked to was from the web site of talk show host Glenn Beck. Each one of the quotes on Beck's page has a Source link to go with it. While a few of the Source links are no longer active, the majority are from major news sources such as the Washington Post, CNN, USAToday, or the website of Kerry for President, the Senate Record, and so on.
That's okay. When I post from Air America (quotes and all) it will be interesting to see the reactionary right react in typical knee jerk fashion. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

BTW, it's not called "NEWS" when you're going over information reported in 1998. It's called bolstering opinion. And it's not news unless you're a "NEWSGATHERING ORGANIZATION" - not a talk show host. That's a Blog. If it reads like a blog, and makes statements like a blog, then it's a blog. Work for some news organizations sometime. You'll never be confused by the difference between "NEWS" and "OPINION" again.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,03:00)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,10:40)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 19 2006,15:13)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,00:37)]Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ June 19 2006,11:24)]Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ June 17 2006,19:49)]Everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs.
LMAO

Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right I can barely type this.

You really don't believe this load of crap, do you?
Well now, let's just have a look... shall we:

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm)
I'm not a great fan of Sheehans, but quoting blogs as news is a joke. #Since there is so much of it going on here I will in the near future feel no need to adhere to the higher standards of posting solely from news sites - unless I mention it in the link.

From now on, Liberals and Democrats should be adhering to those lower standards since the right feels no need to have any limitations on who they link to.
I can't speak for anyone that may have used material from a "blog".

In my post, I didn't use any quote(s) from a "blog". The page of #Quotes (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm) that I linked to was from the web site of talk show host Glenn Beck. Each one of the quotes on Beck's page has a Source link to go with it. While a few of the Source links are no longer active, the majority are from major news sources such as the Washington Post, CNN, USAToday, or the website of Kerry for President, the Senate Record, and so on.
Quote[/b] ]That's okay. #When I post from Air America (quotes and all) it will be interesting to see the reactionary right react in typical knee jerk fashion.

Well, that may or may not be; however, it has no bearing on the material that I posted (which wasn't from a "blog", as you previously implied).

Quote[/b] ]BTW, it's not called "NEWS" when you're going over information reported in 1998.

Absolutely. But, again, that has nothing to do with the FACT that the information I posted (from 1998, or whenever) completely refuted the previous poster.

Quote[/b] ]And it's not news unless you're a "NEWSGATHERING ORGANIZATION" - not a talk show host. #That's a Blog. #If it reads like a blog, and makes statements like a blog, then it's a blog. #Work for some news organizations sometime. #You'll never be confused by the difference between "NEWS" and "OPINION" again.

Again: NOTHING that I posted came from a "blog", nor did ANY of it come in the form of "opinion". These were actual statements made by actual Washington politicians with the actual links to the actual "NEWSGATHERING ORGANIZATION"s that they were actually taken FROM (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm).

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,16:19)]Again: NOTHING that I posted came from a "blog", nor did ANY of it come in the form of "opinion". These were actual statements made by actual Washington politicians with the actual links to the actual "NEWSGATHERING ORGANIZATION"s that they were actually taken FROM (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm).

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]Don't you realize that most of us here at QRZ have Internet service as well as access to cable or satellite TV and newspapers? If we want read the news we will consult the original sources. Unless it comes some obscure source.

Oh, that's right, those socialist rags you like to quote are obscure sources. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif --N4UJF

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ June 19 2006,19:34)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,16:19)]Again: NOTHING that I posted came from a "blog", nor did ANY of it come in the form of "opinion". These were actual statements made by actual Washington politicians with the actual links to the actual "NEWSGATHERING ORGANIZATION"s that they were actually taken FROM (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm).

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]Don't you realize that most of us here at QRZ have Internet service as well as access to cable or satellite TV and newspapers? If we want read the news we will consult the original sources. Unless it comes some obscure source.

Oh, that's right, those socialist rags you like to quote are obscure sources. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif --N4UJF
Remarkable. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I give that last post ***** it's #1 with a bullet! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

(Wow, that was quick. Well, that's what happens when you think you have a wit but are only 1/2 right.) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N2NKW]

Seems to me, all smoke and mirrors aside from both sides, that Sheehan is simply disrespecful.

It seems to me that in her protests, she is forgetting that her son VOLUNTEERED to do his duty. She apparantly has no care that her son voluntarily layed his life down for her and everyone of us regardless if we asked him to or not.

Quite simply, Soldier Sheehan volunteered to enter the military and gave his life. Mother Sheehan refuses to accept that fact. In such, she is absolutly disrespecting her son's decision and therefore is disrespecting her own son's memory. Now how can ANYONE accept anything that woman has to say about anything.

Everyone is soo concerned about clouding this fact up with trying to rationalize or de-rationalize the fact that there is a war going on. Quite simply, it doesn't matter on the soldiers level. The soldiers responsibilty is to carry out orders given by his superiors.

Mother Sheehan is a Soldiers Mother who is trying to use her views and her son's death to carry out an agenda. However, if Soldier Sheehan wasn't in support of the war, why did he join the military? IMO, I think he joined not only to get the benefits, but also to seve his country which he loves. In this, Mother Sheehan should reconsider her views and be proud that her son served our country.

Whatever the reason, be it fighting against terrorism or trying to better himself by using the benefits given to our soldiers for serving thier country, He needs the respect that his mother refuses to give him.

I know he will never get all the respect he deserves, not only from his mother but from all who think the war is illegal or whatever sort of antipatriotic rhetoric they can think of. I however give him respect and want to thank him for laying his life down to serve our country.

[ka5klu]

It is unfortunate that Cindy is so shallowed minded. #I am a Vietnam Veteran whose biggest regret is the amount of American blood wasted by not finishing the job. Now another war with lost blood when are we going to have enough public nerve to finish anything. #I am very proud of the job these kids have done in Iraq. #I see wounded girls and boys wanting to return to the battlefield to finish the job. #Freedom is not free. #We either fight them on their soil or someday we will fight them here and by then they may not be beatable. 911is just a wakeup call to how close the war is getting to our backstep.

73's//Doug//KA5KLU

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (ka5klu @ June 20 2006,05:22)]It is unfortunate that Cindy is so shallowed minded. I am a Vietnam Veteran whose biggest regret is the amount of American blood wasted by not finishing the job.
What would have constituted a "finished" job?

The Vietnamese seem to be content with their country, and they're leaving us alone. They would have left us alone in any case.

They've since repulsed Chinese attempts to intervene along their border, just as they've resisted attempts before that by Japan, France, and the U.S.

As far as the war on our backstep...whether it's Timothy McVeigh or religious extremists, terrorists wanting to violently force their agendas will always be with us and probably moreso with all the novel technological devices readily available for their use. They exist in the crevices of every culture, and destroying the cultures to wipe out the crevices is about as effective as burning down one's home to rid it of vermin.