Say Anything Blog

At least the things she’s saying are getting funnier.  Originally I was getting angry by the things she was doing/saying, but when I read this one, I laughed out loud.

How compassionate you freepers are to smear a woman who lost her so in this disastrous war. Ah the accountability…

I say sign up chicken hawk.

Dear small-b blane: this isn’t the Free Republic, the posters here are not “freepers”. This is Say Anything Blog(says so, in big letters, right at the top), so if there must be a nickname for the posters it would be more of “thingers”, or some other such.

On the substance (or lack thereof) of your post: Cindy Sheehan is entitled to her greif, to outlive one’s children surely must be one of the worst things in the world. However, reasonable people not emotionally encumbered by closeness to the issue can recognize that Casey Sheehan was, in fact, an adult who did, in fact, volunteer in the full knowledge of what the possible ramifications were.

It’s unfortunate that Ms Sheehan has opted to allow herself to be used by the rabid anti-war left, but she, too, is an adult and entitled to make that choice whether it is a good choice or not. While she does have my (and many others’ sympathy, her grief does not put her beyond criticism when she uses that very grief to criticize others. The anti-war left wishes to use her, and use her grief, to affect public policy. That fact alone opens her up to criticism (note the difference between criticizing and “smearing").

I’m sure the limelight has a balming effect, but someday that attention will move on and those raw emotions will still be there. I personally believe that one that day she will regret the spectacle she has made of herself, and rue having cheapened the sacrifice her son made, but then again I could also be wrong about that. It will be a sad day for her either way.

blane said, I say sign up chicken hawk.

Support the police? Sign up!  Support the fire department?  Sign up!

Great logic there.  I say sign up chicken hawk.

No problemo.

Some of the people on FR are a bit uncouth, I will admit that.

I just don’t embrace their opinions the way that the moonbats are embracing Sheehan.

I’ve read FR on occasion, and there was some good stuff on it. However, as you said there is some uncouth stuff on there (more than I care for). Not that I can’t handle uncouth (in fact, I’ve been accused of being that way myself), it’s just that my time is valuable and don’t feel like wading through the uncouth top get to the good stuff.

By the way, that’s a nice blog you’ve got there, I’ll have to put it on my reading list

“You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,” Sheehan declares.

She really needs to get a world map, there is no such country as “Palestine”. For that matter, there never has been. Nor has there ever been a distinctly Arab people known as Palestinians.

She’s just one more tool of the Left spouting off antisemitic and anti-Zionist lies propoganda. That will win her no friends on the Right.

Steve: yeah, I assume that some readers here read the both. But it seemed to me that was a fairly glaring error on blane’s part.

Lame blane, perhaps you should watch your mouth because you know squat about the people that read this blog.

Perhaps the possibility that there are military veterans reading this blog never entered your pea sized brain. Or perhaps the possibility that these people would like to be with their comrades, but are too old, never occurred to you either.

Just be thankful that there are people like us that were, are, or will be in the U.S. military. We’re the ones that protect your yellow arse so you can sleep at night and mouth off about how bad America is.

Oh, Seth, for the record, I’m on FR as well.

Sphagnum, I fixed your comment, you were missing a word.

The sad thing is that the Dem party far too often clings onto people like this and makes them the face of their bowel movement.

This is turning into a PR debacle for the Looney Left.  They are being exposed and that’s when the general public runs from them.  The sad thing is that the Dem party far too often clings onto people like this and makes them the face of their movement.

By the way, that’s a nice blog you’ve got there, I’ll have to put it on my reading list

Ssshhhh, don’t spread it around.

I don’t update it nearly as much as Rob does his, but it gets its share of new posts. Whether they meaningful or totally pointless. And please pardon my apathy .

Be sure to check out The Hasselhoffian Recursion. Of course, that may make you remove it from your reading list.

Sphagnum:

This is turning into a PR debacle for the Looney Left.

If things stay on track and the Iraqi’s get their new constitution in the next couple of weeks, have new elections, get trained up security forces, and we start leaving by the summer of 2006, Cindy will be the least of their debacles.  Their constant nay-saying about the war will expose them permanently as the Party of No.  Even if they are right… well saying “no” isn’t the stuff that heros are made of.

Myself: I hope the media distributes every nugget plopping out of Cindy’s mouth around the country so everybody can read it and not just her friends on DailyKos.  I’m in agreement with Tonikem, what she is saying is so absurd you start to wonder if Cindy is the secret identity for JadeGold.

The liberals have become so myopic in this country that they not only have no message left, they don’t even recognize where “opposition party” stops and “self interest” starts.  If Bush pulls it off, they will have left themselves extremely exposed for the next election cycle.  I am becoming more and more convinced overtime that the real story of this decade will be the self-immolation of the Democratic party.

I am not paying my taxes for 2004.

Thoreau wrote, “The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war.”

The way I see it, she’s applying his principles. That said, she should not complain when she receives his fate (jail time).

Her comment on Israel and Palestine is ludicrous. What possible reason does she offer to make us think twice about her claim?

Update:

Sheehan and her cohorts aren’t making any friends in Crawford either.

Was he “manipulated” by the right-wing media?

What taxes would she be paying assuming she is a full time protester? Or has she tapped into the lucrative insane anti-Americanism for cash circuit?

Sheehan’s comments about Iraq and Israel could be inspired by George Washington’s Farewell Address (click link for full speech - it’s a good read):

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Ryan - Did I miss something?  Who called Ms. Sheehan a traitor in this post or comments?

Ryan:

Her son died in Iraq for your freedom so you could call his mother a traitor?

What a sorry-assed strawman argument.  Questioning her motives is not the same as calling her a traitor.

I just waiting to see how many more zingers come out of her mouth before your mainstream DNC members start backpedaling really fast on your latest “heroine”.

What taxes would she be paying assuming she is a full time protester? Or has she tapped into the lucrative insane anti-Americanism for cash circuit?

Her son died in Iraq for your freedom so you could call his mother a traitor?

Just wait until Sheehan starts blaming everything on the Jews.  Which, if her latest comments tell us anything, shouldn’t be too far off now.

The media will be backing off her then…

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Did you miss the part where I said I was being facetious when I said “Her son died in Iraq for your freedom so you could call his mother a traitor?” Supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, not foot-up-the-ass.  :(

Uh, Ryan, I’m sorry that I didn’t get that you were making a facetious or “tongue-in-cheek” comment about someone who payed the ultimate sacrifice for his country (BTW, now that I understand you, if anything I consider your statement sarcastic rather than facetious).

Your offensive joke aside, you use the classic trollish mistake of using over-the-top hyperbole to make your point, and look like an unitelligent peon to the people you’re arguing with.  (Hint equating “anti-American” and “traitorous” activities is over-the-top hyperbole)

[...] In the time directly after the attacks most Americans united in condemning those who had launched them. Since that time, however, things have changed. Those who opposed attacking Afghanistan and Iraq have taken to doing all but excusing (and in some instances actually excusing) the 9/11 attacks, if not outright blaming them on the government of the United States itself. People like Ward Churchill tell us that its our fault we were attacked because we’re fascists. People like Cindy Sheehan tell us that the Americans and Jews are the real terrorists in the middle east. Anyone trying to reason with these people by pointing out that spreading democracy to the oppressed regions of the middle east is a pretty good way to stop terrorism is met with a stinging deluge of moral equivalence. “Blame America First” is the ideal these people cling to and they aren’t letting go. [...]

What a sorry-assed strawman argument. Questioning her motives is not the same as calling her a traitor.

I was trying to be facetious.  Every time someone questions the need for the war in Iraq, somebody replies, “Why don’t you support the troops?  Why do you hate America?  They give their lives so you can live free and enjoy the rights to call them names and blah blah blah!”

I guess it’s a stupid argument when it’s used against the Iraq War supporters - but not when used against those silly, naive, freedom-hating liberals. 

Ryan - Did I miss something? Who called Ms. Sheehan a traitor in this post or comments?

Saying she is involved in anti-American behavior, as ICallMasICM did, is just another way of calling her a traitor.  It’s not “questioning her motives” when you assume to know she hates freedom, Democracy, Mom, apple pie, and baseball.  Why, I’ll bet she doesn’t even like Texas - and she probably voted for Osama!  Oh noes!

Ryan:

I guess it’s a stupid argument when it’s used against the Iraq War supporters - but not when used against those silly, naive, freedom-hating liberals. 

The old “they did it too” defense?  Time to leave forth-grade playground and grow up.

I’m sorry my remark offended you.  I’ll try to make sure I’m not so sarcastic in the future.  Levity is probably un-American, anyhow.  Woops, there I go again!

As an unintelligent peon, I’ll try harder to be smart like you.  I apologize for trolling - sarcasm should not have to be tolerated on the Say Anything blog.

Since I am an unintelligent peon troll, thank you for setting me straight.  I always thought being an anti-American American made a person a traitor, but of course, I’m wrong.

Wow Ryan...why don’t you just nail yourself to a cross already?

You really need to grow some thicker skin if you’re going to stick with this blogging thing.

And nobody here is calling Sheehan “un-American.” She was said to hold anti-American views (and calling the Americans in the middle-east the real terrorists is pretty much as anti-American as you can get) but she wasn’t called a traitor.

Maybe you should spend some time getting to know the people you’re debating with before you jump to partisan, knee-jerk conclusions.  Most of the people who comment here are pretty reasonable.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

After I saw a comment that implied Sheehan was anti-American, I (tried to) make the point that her son died to protect people’s freedoms to call her names, in a reverse of a common argument used by pro-war people (the “soldiers died to protect your freedom to protest, you ungrateful person, you” thing).  I was not attempting to make light of her son’s death; I was attempting to make light of what I viewed as unnecesarily harsh reactions toward her reactions.

That’s all I was trying to do.  It didn’t work.

I tried to use a bit of sarcasm and embellishment (Voting for Osama?) to point out the silliness of some responses after my original comment was misconstrued.  That didn’t work and my comments did not translate well.  (I should have just stuck with Washington’s Farewell Speech.)

So, sorry to have made my entrance into commenting on this blog in such a fashion.  But I honestly don’t believe calling me a peon “sets me up to be the bigger person,” ya know?

As far as the anti-American/treason thing: It’s all semantics.  To me, anti-American means pretty close to the same thing as treason.  One is more general, one is more action.  I didn’t think it was a big stretch, and I apologize again for not being very clear.  (Same for facetiousness and sarcasm.)

Hopefully, this response will clear things up - I wasn’t trying to insult Sheehan’s son’s death, I wasn’t trying to troll, I wasn’t trying to make knee-jerk partisan reactions, I wasn’t trying to start a flame war, and I wasn’t trying to rile people up.  (I’m the thin-skinned one?  Amazing how much angst I unintentionally stirred up.)

Can we please be done with the drama now?

Finally, here’s a little logic quiz for you:

Is every “Anti-American” statement treasonous?
Is every treasonous statement “Anti-American”?

If your answer to either or both is “Yes”, you are either ignorant of the law/Constitution or unintelligent in your logic.

I can’t think of a treasonous statement that I wouldn’t qualify as Anti-American. I guess I’m just ignorant, care to englighten me with one?

Ryan - Shit, buddy, I set you up to be the bigger person and you, instead, reveal your true self.  Levity isn’t un-American, but using the death of a soldier to make a “funny” point isn’t humorous.

Understanding the difference between sarcasm and facetiousness IS subtle. It’s too bad you don’t get the difference.  Both are acceptable by Rob, based on my experience here, but you better be ready for the retorts (which, by your attitude, you were not).

Finally, here’s a little logic quiz for you:

Is every “Anti-American” statement treasonous?
Is every treasonous statement “Anti-American”?

If your answer to either or both is “Yes”, you are either ignorant of the law/Constitution or unintelligent in your logic.

Point taken, “unintelligent peon” was over the top.  However, despite modern lawyer tactics, words mean something to most of us.  There is a big difference between:

1) Anti/Un-American worda and actions and Treasonous words and actions
2) Manslaughter and Murder
3) And most importantly, statements that are or MAY be wrong and LIES…

The difference between all of these is the malicious intent of the latter.

Funny. I am a member in good standing of 2 different militias, we have members serving in combat, we have members working as civ. contractors, not only in Iraq, also Bosnia-Herzegovinia and Africa. Jointly we shipped 7 tons of medical supplies and 20 sanitary dry toilets to the hardest hit tsunami victims in Sumatra. We also gave material assistance to the communities hardest hit by hurricanes in Florida last year. You read about a few fringe wackos and then crap all over the 5.1 million citizen militia members nationwide. We ain’t all redneck,hate filled Neo-Nazis. And as far as I am aware, the only oath militias take is the Pledge of Allegiance.

Sphagnum - The militia movement is a classic case of being “pro-American” but still treasonous behavior on how they would “fix” America with their movement.

I happen to think that Cindy is suffering with a form of misdirected anger.  I think that the person she hates is really her own son. 

She’s an old anti-war protester who’s son joins the military, then re-ups and goes off to war.  That decision must have really angered her. 

She can’t hate her son, so she directs her anger at the president. 

It’s scary that the left has grabbed on to her so tightly, but it’ll be funny to watch them pull further away from the American center.

[...] Of course, you’re not going to read much about the Jewish conspiracy nonsense Cindy Sheehan is spewing in any major media outlet. After all, journalists wouldn’t want you thinking that Cindy is out of her gourd or anything. They’d like you to think that she’s a nice old lady who just wants to sit down and have a pleasant, perhaps tearful chat with the President. “The Jews are the real terrorists” rhetoric just doesn’t fit into that picture. [...]

On the other hand, her comments about Bush as a “war criminal” are in reference to all of the innocent Iraqi civilians who have died in his war, since they would not have died if Bush had not invaded Iraq.

We don’t know that… Saddam had killed MANY of (what he considered) his people.  How do we know that under Saddam the same number of people who not have died?

the only way they can - through terrorism,

Most definitely WRONG!  They have political avenues.  Everyone likes to parrot the line that “we should have given inspectors longer in Iraq"… I disagreed with that, but here, the Palestinians are not in danger of losing anything if they continue with the political discussions… In fact, more people would sympathize with them if they didn’t use Terrorism as a means.

Also, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorism before the war, so our presence their now is only inciting more Arabs to join the terrorists.

Again, WRONG.  We have found chemical weapons and weapons facilities in Iraq… Just no mass stockpile, most of which would have fit in two Semi trailers that could still be buried or have been moved to another country.  As for links to Terrorism… They funded Palestinian suicide bombers.  They met with Bin Ladens group… ETC ETC…

So who should take responsibility for these enormous mistakes, as the body bags keep coming in?

Since you are wrong about the mistakes, perhaps you can start to blame the body count on those who are guilty… the foreign nationals we are fighting in Iraq???  As it is, this is STILL the lowest cost (in people) war we have ever waged… one of the least expensive wars EVER!

Also, “fighting them there so you don’t have to fight them here”, has to be the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. Our presence in Iraq has only swelled the ranks of the terrorists and certainly won’t deter them from attacking us here at home.

Are you serious???  They are spending lots of money on recruitment and weapons… We are depleting their capability to wage an attack against us while removing a haven for training and funding… You don’t think that limits their ability to wage terror here????????

After all, the Palestinians have been fighting terrorism for decades and their “war on terror” has got them nowhere.

Why didn’t you lead off with that… :::SIGH:::  I could have saved myself all this time, now that I know you’re a loon!!!  (unless you meant “After all, the Israelis have been fighting terrorism for decades and their “war on terror” has got them nowhere.”)

Then you’d just be loopy, but not a full fledged “LOON”!

’“You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,” Sheehan declares.’

I think everyone is missing her point. She’s not saying that we’re the terrorists, she saying that the presence of Israelis in the Palestinian territories (in violation of UN resolutions) and American’s in Iraq, incites terrorism by Arabs. On the other hand, her comments about Bush as a “war criminal” are in reference to all of the innocent Iraqi civilians who have died in his war, since they would not have died if Bush had not invaded Iraq. Besides, did anyone even notice that most of her comments have been taken out of context?

I think she’s right to a degree. Every day that Israel occupies the Palestinian territories illegally, the the Palestinians will fight back the only way they can - through terrorism, since they don’t have the tanks and fighter aircraft that Israel has to do it’s fighting with. Also, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorism before the war, so our presence their now is only inciting more Arabs to join the terrorists. But now that we’re in this shit (for the wrong reasons), we have no choice but to fight and win, because our defeat will only embolden the terrorists to come after us even more.

I don’t agree with her end goal, since we can’t leave Iraq without winning now. But she’s right about Bush’s mistakes leading up to the war - no weapons of mass destruction - no links to terrorism. So who should take responsibility for these enormous mistakes, as the body bags keep coming in?

Also, “fighting them there so you don’t have to fight them here”, has to be the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. Our presence in Iraq has only swelled the ranks of the terrorists and certainly won’t deter them from attacking us here at home. After all, the Palestinians have been fighting terrorism for decades and their “war on terror” has got them nowhere.

"studentrights” said, I think everyone is missing her point. She’s not saying that we’re the terrorists, she saying that the presence of Israelis in the Palestinian territories (in violation of UN resolutions) and American’s in Iraq, incites terrorism by Arabs.

Our mere existance “incites terrorism” by Arabs Muslims.

On the other hand, her comments about Bush as a “war criminal” are in reference to all of the innocent Iraqi civilians who have died in his war, since they would not have died if Bush had not invaded Iraq.

Innocent civilians dying in a war does not make a “war criminal”.

Besides, did anyone even notice that most of her comments have been taken out of context?

No. Where?  Give us an example.

I think she’s right to a degree. Every day that Israel occupies the Palestinian territories illegally, the the Palestinians will fight back the only way they can - through terrorism, since they don’t have the tanks and fighter aircraft that Israel has to do it’s fighting with.

Once again I direct you to the fact that the reasons they give for using terrorism is Israel’s mere existance.  They claim that all of Israel is “occupied”.

Also, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorism before the war, so our presence their now is only inciting more Arabs to join the terrorists.

How do you know that Iraq didn’t have WMDs?  Also, no serious person suggests that Iraq had no links to terrorism.  Saddam’s entire government was terroristic.  He harbored terrorists.  He paid suicide bombers.

But now that we’re in this shit (for the wrong reasons), we have no choice but to fight and win, because our defeat will only embolden the terrorists to come after us even more.

What would those “wrong reasons” be?

But she’s right about Bush’s mistakes leading up to the war - no weapons of mass destruction - no links to terrorism.

No she wasn’t right.  Again: how do you know that WMDs weren’t moved out in the 14 month “rush to war”?  And quit telling us that there were no links to terrorism.

So who should take responsibility for these enormous mistakes, as the body bags keep coming in?

What “enormous mistakes”?  You haven’t given us any.

Also, “fighting them there so you don’t have to fight them here”, has to be the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard.

Where are we fighting them? Over there. Are we fighting them here? No. Why is this simple logic “the dumbest argument you’ve ever heard”?

Our presence in Iraq has only swelled the ranks of the terrorists and certainly won’t deter them from attacking us here at home.

Proof?

studentrights: I honestly don’t mean this as an insult, but that’s a frankly unsophisticated (and somewhat misinformed) view of the issues you have. Let’s take it bit by bit.

You state that it’s Israel’s presence in Palestine that causes terrorism. Unfortunately, you miss some key facts, not the least of which there never was an independent country called “Palestine”, and before the creation of Israel there was no great drive for a Palestinian state. Ironically, the creation of a Palestinian state will most likely be directly due to the founding of Israel. What’s more, the Palestinians don’t recoginze the right of Israel to exist, they claim all of Israel as Palestinian land. So for the Israelis to get off Palestinian land would involve a massive order of inner tubes, water wings, and assorted other floaties. Or are you suggesting that they live in a Palestinian government despite the fact that any group likely to take up that mantle of power is manifestly anti-semitic?

As you yourself admitted, the way out of Iraq is to win. Any other result will be a disaster for America and Iraq, not to mention having serious economic and security implications for the greater middle east and the rest of the world. This war started on Aug. 2nd, 1990 when Saddam first invaded Kuwait. It never formally ended, a cease fire (which Saddam violated, many times)is NOT peace and is NOT final.

Iraq had a provable connection to terrorism. For Saddam, terrorism was a valid foreign policy option. So either you’re not well read on the subject, or are being willfully ignorant.

If the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists, it’s only because they wer creatable. Radical Islam has been formenting hatred of the west since the 1950’s (if not earlier). It’s a tree that’s just now bearing its bloody fruit. So if this war is getting the closeted terrorists into the sunlight, then I say good. When you have a festering wound, you have to bleed it a while before it gets better. There is no other way. Reasoning with people is always preferable to violence, but some people are not reasonable. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

Radical Islam is an ideology that doesn’t recoginze anyone’s right to believe and live differently. In their own words they believe that every person in the world should live by thier version of Islam, and death to any who disagree. If you don’t know this, I’d like to suggest that perhaps you should read up a bit on it.

Correction: I meant to say “After all, the ISRAELIs have been fighting terrorism for decades and their “war on terror” has got them nowhere.” That was a typo.

You do have one point, SR. The Israelis have not made headway against terrorism. For 20 odd years they were constrained to allow the father of modern terror to masqarade as the leader of the Palestinians. They have not killed the"known" leaders of terror groups within their borders, being restrained by world oppinion. You can successfully destroy terroism. Not by putting them on trail or in jail. You do it by putting a 167gr hollowpoint in their head, then you hang them by their ankles in the street with a sign in Farsi that says “INFIDEL”. The Quran they claim to follow gives us the duty to hunt these animals down. They are the ones in violation of God’s Law, not us. It is a big world out there, you should get a clue about it before trying to tell others about how evil we, America, are.

I think everyone is missing her point. She’s not saying that we’re the terrorists, she saying that the presence of Israelis in the Palestinian territories (in violation of UN resolutions) and American’s in Iraq, incites terrorism by Arabs.

Right....  Heard her latest rant?

The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”

So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at San Francisco State University.

Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: “We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.”

This woman is close to certifiably insane!  Nuclear war in Iraq? wtf?

Um, Ryan, you may want to check with studentrights (who understands NBC a bit more than you obviously) about your understanding of the dangers of depleted uranium.

If you have ANY concern about depleted uranium, it ain’t the radioactivity you should be concerned with, but it’s effects as a heavy metal like mercury and lead.

"Nuclear war” refers to depleted uranium, a dangerous leftover from uranium-tipped weaponry, which makes the ammunition much more deadly, but unfortunately leaves radioactive residue behind.  NATO uses DU weapons as well.

Re: ChemWeap

Again, WRONG. We have found chemical weapons and weapons facilities in Iraq… Just no mass stockpile, most of which would have fit in two Semi trailers that could still be buried or have been moved to another country. As for links to Terrorism… They funded Palestinian suicide bombers. They met with Bin Ladens group… ETC ETC…

No.

WashPo

The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein’s government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

Re: this craziness

You can successfully destroy terroism. Not by putting them on trail or in jail. You do it by putting a 167gr hollowpoint in their head, then you hang them by their ankles in the street with a sign in Farsi that says “INFIDEL”. The Quran they claim to follow gives us the duty to hunt these animals down. They are the ones in violation of God’s Law, not us. It is a big world out there, you should get a clue about it before trying to tell others about how evil we, America, are.

I’ll just sit here and wait for the angry denunciations from the Say Anything people about how Americans should respect rule of law and open & free trials, innocent before guilty, etc., etc…

PS: Trials work.

First let me say that in my first post, I was only trying to clarify what Cindy Seehan was saying, since everyone on this blog seems to have it out for her.

I should also make it clear that I don’t agree with her end goal of getting out of Iraq immediately, because that would be a mistake, but on the other hand I do agree with her on some points and not on others. But whether I agree or disagree with her, I’m not going to insult her like many of you on this blog have, because if your insulting her, you’re being disrespectful of her dead son too. Nobody likes it when you talk bad about their mother - that’s a fact.

Second, I should probably mention that I’m a former Army soldier (101st Airborne), UN peacekeeper, US Army Drill Sergeant, Nuclear-Biological-Chemical NCO, and I’ve actually been to Iraq, Israeli/Palestine, and Kosovo to boot. I’ve even been to the house and met the family of a female suicide bomber in the Palestinian West-Bank, her name was Ayat Akras. In turn, I’ve also been to the house and met the family of her Israeli victim, Rachel Levy. So I have a bit of hands-on experience in this matter. It certainly doesn’t make me an expert on the subject but there’s nothing like being there and getting your information first hand. Currently I’m a war videographer or dare I say documentary filmmaker—http://www.idcfilms.com/

I’ve read the responses to what I posted and I understand that many of you disagree with some of the points I’ve made. I can’t speak for Cindy Seehan, so from this point I’m only going to address the points I’ve mentioned that concur with my own opinion. Cindy will have to defend herself from this point on.

Let’s start with comments by Seth Williams since he called me “unsophisticated (and somewhat misinformed)”

Unfortunately, you miss some key facts, not the least of which there never was an independent country called “Palestine”, and before the creation of Israel there was no great drive for a Palestinian state. - Seth W.

First of all I never said anything about a Palestinian state, I said Palestinian “territories”. So you stand corrected, thank you. While it’s true that their has never been a state called Palestine, it’s one of the historical names of that land which predates the Roman occupation, a name commonly used right up to the end of the “British Mandate of Palestine” in 1947. The British withdrew from Palestine in 1947 after the approval of UN Resolution 181, which was intended to divide Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, which led to heavy fighting and eventually to the unilateral creation of the state of Israel by the Jewish population in 1948. Incidentally most Palestinian Arabs opposed Resolution 181, since the UN was going to give 55% of the land to Jews who only made up 33% of the population and owned only 6.5% of the property at the time (70% of the property was state owned).

In any event, to make a long story short after a succession of wars, UN resolutions (242, 381), and other treaties and agreements, both Gaza and the West-Bank are considered to be “territories”, as in not a part of sovereign country, by both the UN and the United States. In fact, President George W. Bush supports the creation of a Palestinian state along the 1949 armistice lines created at the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. But since Israeli has choose to occupy the territories, Gaza and the West-Bank are also referred to internationally as the “disputed” or “occupied” territories. So your use of “presence” would be a gross understatement of the facts.

Concerning “no great drive for a Palestinian state”, a drive for the creation of a Palestinian state predates the the creation of Israel by one year, when fighting broke out between Arabs and Jews over the proposed partition of Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish within the boarders of Palestine. Prior to that, their was also a drive for the creation of an Arab state that encompassed Palestine, which dates back to World War I when Palestine was occupied by the Turks. So you stand corrected again, Seth W.

As you yourself admitted, the way out of Iraq is to win. Any other result will be a disaster for America and Iraq, not to mention having serious economic and security implications for the greater middle east and the rest of the world. This war started on Aug. 2nd, 1990 when Saddam first invaded Kuwait. It never formally ended, a cease fire (which Saddam violated, many times)is NOT peace and is NOT final.

No argument here. We should have finished the job the first time when we had the jubilant support of the Shiites & Kurds in 1991. In fact, I was all for the second invasion of Iraq in 2003 but only on the principle of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam, since Iraq presented little or no threat to the United States compared to say Iran, who openly supports and funds terrorism (on a scale that dwarfs Iraq) or North Korea who is known to have nuclear weapons. But now that we’ve invaded and occupied Iraq, our defeat in Iraq would constitutes a serious threat to the United States, since Iraq would undoubtedly become a major base for international terrorist activities against the United States and destabilize the middle-east as Iraq fractures into civil-war.

Iraq had a provable connection to terrorism. For Saddam, terrorism was a valid foreign policy option. So either you’re not well read on the subject, or are being willfully ignorant.

The 9/11 commission found “no evidence” of a link between Iraq and 9/11. Sure Iraq had contact with terrorists, but so do a lot of countries, namely Iran and just about every country in the in the world, in one way or another. But compared to Iran, Syria, and our buddies Saudi Arabia, Iraq was a minor player. Why? Because radical Islam was a threat to Saddam’s regime as much as it was to the Shaw of Iran, who was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, an AP story in 2003 states that Osama Bin Laden “denounced Saddam’s secular, socialist al-Baath party as ‘infidels.’”

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

THOMAS KEAN (R), 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN:  Well, that’s what our staff has found.  Now, it doesn’t mean there weren’t al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years.  They’re somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there.  But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.

If the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists, it’s only because they were creatable. Radical Islam has been formenting hatred of the west…

Well that statement is self-evident. But our presence in Iraq accelerated the process of radicalization into action, by giving the terrorist a target they could actually reach with little or no effort, 125,000+ American troops within walking distance of three major and proven terror supporting states, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. But our presence in Iraq certainly won’t deter or prevent Al Qaeda from attacking the United States directly, because one successful attack on the homeland is worth a hundred in Iraq. If anything has deterred Al Qaeda’s ability to attack the homeland, it was our invasion of Afghanistan. An invasion that I approved of from the beginning, since they obviously had direct ties to terror.

Radical Islam is an ideology that doesn’t recognize anyone’s right to believe and live differently. In their own words they believe that every person in the world should live by their version of Islam, and death to any who disagree.

Well I won’t disagree with your definition of “radical Islam”, but if you’ve ever been to the middle-east, you’ll quickly come to understand that these people are in the minority. Again, by that definition, the people of Iraq by comparison were one of the more progressive countries, since Iraq was (still is) a highly educated secular nation, unlike Iran which is full of Islamic radicals. Saddam was not an Islamic fundamentalists or any kind of religious radical, he was an old time Stalinist.

Ok, that’s it for now. I’ll get to SethYantiss next time.

As for likwidshoe, i think you should spin that hat around, shave your head, throw out your hash pipe, and march yourself down to the recruiting station and signup to spend some quality time in Iraq, before you start asking me for proof. Where’s your proof? The 9/11 Commission and the official government report on WMDs contradict your point of view, not mine.

the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq’s WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq’s nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.—CNN October 7th, 2004

JFH,

From Wikipedia:

Most scientific studies have found no link between depleted uranium and negative health effects such as cancer, liver damage, and birth defects, but many people point to other evidence that suggests a link.

Environmental groups have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions because it is radioactive, effectively lasts forever in the environment, and also it is toxic in the same manner as lead and other heavy metals.

I did not say it caused cancer, but that it left a radioactive residue behind.  I should have elaborated but I wanted to keep the post short.  Sorry for not being clear about that point.

Okay, Ryan, you are technically correct, but your comment is like saying that you can change the salinity of Lake Michigan by pumping a couple 100 gallons of sea water into it.  If you live in the Northeast, you’re exposed to magnitudes higher radioactivity in your basement than a normal Iraqi is with the depleted uranium used in our weapons.

Sphagnum posted…

Right…. Heard her latest rant?

“The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”

So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at San Francisco State University.

Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: “We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.”

This woman is close to certifiably insane! Nuclear war in Iraq? wtf?

Sphagnum you are dead wrong like a glow worm on a hook.

I wish that I had beat Ryan to the punch on this one. He’s right about the depleted uranium rounds. The residue from those rounds pollutes the countryside, the “contamination” that Sheehan’s talking about. The danger comes from inhaling the uranium oxide dust that’s created from the impact of the round. The dust eventually settles and it is dispersed by wind, rain, and human contact (walking on it).

The danger comes from both the radiation and chemical toxicity, but the real danger comes from inhaling or ingesting it, since the dust will poison you until the uranium completely decays. “depleted” means that it retains 60% of it’s radioactivity, so it’s not all that depleted, and as it breaks down it will emit Alpha, Beta, and Gamma rays (Gamma being the most deadly kind). U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so were talking about constant 24/7 exposure to damaging radiation while it’s in your body. Also, as the U-238 decays it transforms into more deadly elements, which is where the Beta and extremely deadly Gamma rays come from. Honestly, I had to look that up to be sure. I only worked with nuclear-biological-chemical detection and decontamination at the company level and that was quite a while back. I’m no nuclear engineer but lucky my best friend Jeff is.

The real danger for us as American’s on the home front is that the terrorists might detonate a dirty bomb in a US city, packed with stuff similar to this dust. Too bad we didn’t invade Iran or North korea, because unlike Iraq they actually have WMD. Actually WMD - not two trucks filled with stuff to make WMD. And even if they had WMD you need someway to “effectively” deliver it, which is a lot more complicated that it sounds.

Two trailers found in Iraq were apparently built to be mobile biological weapons laboratories, U.S. officials tell a newspaper. - CBS

There is no evidence the two trailers were ever actually used to make biological weapons, the intelligence officials said. - FOX NEWS

Like I said, a lot of the comments that Cindy Seehan is making are being taken out of context or in this case being interpreted by someone who doesn’t take the time to look into what she’s talking about.

When you just rip a sentence or two out (of context) from these long interviews that she’s doing with the media, it’s easy to make her or anyone else for that matter looking an idiot.

Like I said, I don’t agree with everything that she’s saying, but too many of you are just spouting off non-sense.

2Hotel9, you posted…

You do have one point, SR. The Israelis have not made headway against terrorism. For 20 odd years they were constrained to allow the father of modern terror to masqarade as the leader of the Palestinians. They have not killed the”known” leaders of terror groups within their borders, being restrained by world oppinion. You can successfully destroy terroism. Not by putting them on trail or in jail. You do it by putting a 167gr hollowpoint in their head, then you hang them by their ankles in the street with a sign in Farsi that says “INFIDEL”.

Dear 2Hotel9,

When did I ever say that Americans are “evil”? Never, right?

I liked Reagan, I voted for George Bush Sr., would have voted for Clinton if I had made it to the polling both, I’ve even voted for Nader once I think, but not George W. Bush. He’s the only hollow point I want to shoot through a gun. (And no I’m not making a threat against the President).

Also, if you think killing Arafat (that’s who your referring to right?) would have stopped Palestinian terrorism, then you don’t understand the politics at all. Even if the Palestinian Authority under Arafat had wanted to stop all of the attacks against Israel, they couldn’t, because no single person or group controls the multitude of radical terrorist factions in the middle-east, especially when it comes to attacks on Israel.

Thankfully, the Israeli’s have come to realize brute military force won’t stop terrorism against Israel. Only through the creation of a prosperous Palestinian state alongside of Israel, will any peace be found, hence the withdraw from Gaza. To bad this strategy won’t work on al Qaeda.

CNN

Duelfer said he did not think that chemical shells would be found in the thousands. But given the number of weapons Iraq was unable to account for after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he said it is likely that others will turn up.

The insurgents who rigged the sarin shell—which was unmarked—as a roadside bomb “didn’t know what they had,” he said.

[...]

[Duelfer] denied the search is a wild goose chase, as some critics have suggested.

“A wild goose chase is when you’re looking for something that may not exist,” he said. “We’re looking for something that does exist, and that is the truth. You know I wasn’t sent here to find weapons of mass destruction. I was sent out here to find the truth about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Iraq didn’t possess WMD.  The people who have what little chemicals were made off during the Persian Gulf War don’t know what they have.  Claiming that just because we haven’t found huge stockpiles (or truckloads) of WMD doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist is a very poor argument.

As far as Colin Powell goes, the administration no longer backs up or makes those claims.

U.S. study: Iraq likely didn’t ship WMD to Syria

Report: Iraq intelligence ‘dead wrong’

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

There were also stories from the Boston Globe with similar finds… However these stories were pulled.

When Colin Powell made the case before the UN, he talked about the amounts of biological weapons… Everything he discussed could have fit in two Semi trailers.

POWELL: Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.

And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented.

You may want to re-read the speech… it’s a good one!  He clearly details that trucks were used to transport SOMETHING from areas that we suspected were weapons factories…

But yeah, I guess that since we haven’t found them, they never existed.

You may want to re-read the speech… it’s a good one! He clearly details that trucks were used to transport SOMETHING from areas that we suspected were weapons factories…

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Seth Yantiss,

A monkey and two clowns could produce Anthrax, Mustard Gas, and Nerve Agent. They’re all pre-World War II technologies. Do you have any idea how many countries have the ability to easily produce these toxins? Basically any country with the ability to produce industrial chemicals and /or pharmaceuticals.

Are we going to invade every country that has links to terror and the ability to produce chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? Because al Qaeda has a pretty long list of countries to get this stuff from like Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea and a handful other third world countries, who happen to have links to terror.

Freeing the Iraqi people from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein is a noble cause, but that’s not why we went to war in Iraq, and that’s not what the President sold to the American public before the war.

The President was wrong about WMDs, wrong about the links to terror, wrong about the the post-war plan, and now were paying for it one body bag at a time in Iraq.

I hope we win the war in Iraq because we are going to be in serious trouble if we don’t, so excuse me for not having faith in the leadership of a President who has so far bungled the war in Iraq.

studentrights said, As for likwidshoe, i think you should spin that hat around, shave your head, throw out your hash pipe, and march yourself down to the recruiting station and signup to spend some quality time in Iraq, before you start asking me for proof.

Chickenhawk fallacy of argument.  Nice assumptions, by the way.  Your arguement just got a lot weaker when you decided to answer me this way.  I was impressed with your answer before I read this.

Where’s your proof? The 9/11 Commission and the official government report on WMDs contradict your point of view, not mine.

What’s my point of view?  I merely asked, how do you know that Iraq didn’t have WMDs?  Do you discount the possibility that they could have been moved out in the 14 month “rush to war”? The “9/11 Commission” doesn’t.  Everything I’ve heard said that it’s “not likely”, but that’s hardly conclusive. Are you just going to just give me another smartass answer? 

Also, care to explain why Jamie Gorelick was on the “9/11 Commission” when she should have been in front of the commission answering questions?  Care to hang your hat on their findings as if they weren’t political in and of themselves?  Be my guest.

The President was wrong about WMDs, wrong about the links to terror, wrong about the the post-war plan, and now were paying for it one body bag at a time in Iraq.

He was definitely right about the country being a sponser of terrorism.  And now we are reaping the rewards of thousands of body bags filled with terrorists.

The anti-war crowd are usually the first to run away in the face of danger, pausing only long-enough to look back and criticize all those brave souls who stayed behind to defend everything that we all, including especially those whining cowards, believe in. They want the freedoms, but feel that no-one should ever have to fight to acquire them or to keep them. Freedoms should be granted to them solely because they deserve them.

Penned by a Disabled Vietnam Veteran on 10/25/2000

That’s pretty funny!!!  You provide conjecture and hypothesis to prove that my conjecture and hypothesis is wrong!  HA!

Thanks, but I am going to continue to believe that Saddam (even he believed it) had weapons and that they are now missing, yet to be found. 

I don’t really see that any PROOF can be had either way, so I am going to err on the side of caution. 

2 questions though… Where did the Sarin come from? and Why did Saddam constantly try to hide stuff from the inspectors?

Ryan, you ignorant slut you. If trials work please to explain how the Bali Bombing crew is going to be back in the street in one more year. They were found guilty. The were sentenced to 25 to life. So just how is it that a group of terrorists, who have bragged and laughed about killing a bunch of people who had no idea what was going to happen, are going to skate? Come on, your the big brain, enlighten us.

Chickenhawk fallacy of argument. Nice assumptions, by the way. Your arguement just got a lot weaker when you decided to answer me this way. I was impressed with your answer before I read this.

likwidshoe What’s this “chickenhawk” crap. I served over 12 years in the US Army and I’ve also been to Iraq (Baghdad), Israel (West-Bank), and Kosovo as a war videographer (filmmaker). What about you?

What’s my point of view? I merely asked, how do you know that Iraq didn’t have WMDs? Do you discount the possibility that they could have been moved out in the 14 month “rush to war”? The “9/11 Commission” doesn’t. Everything I’ve heard said that it’s “not likely”, but that’s hardly conclusive. Are you just going to just give me another smartass answer?

Look, you can either believe the 9/11 commission report or not, which was incidentally chaired by a Republican and found no Iraqi links to 9/11. Sure Iraq had links to terror, so does every country in the middle-east. But they were not found to have links to terror against the United States or specifically 9/11. Also, it was the CIA led “Iraq Survey Group” that issued the final government report on Iraqi WMD’s not the 9/11 commission.

Besides, if having WMD and links to terror are a reason to invade a country, we’ll have to conquer the entire middle-east. Because any country with the ability to produce industrial chemicals and/or pharmaceuticals, can easily produce chemical-biological WMDs in short period of time. The capability to produce nuclear material on the other hand is almost impossible to hide and certainly can’t be haul it off in a handful of trucks.

He was definitely right about the country being a sponsor of terrorism.

Iraq was more of a supporter of terror than a sponsor, since Saddam provided money to families of suicide bombers, after they blew themselves up. But he has never been shown to be a sponsor of terror against the United States. And as I’ve stated before, radical Islam was a threat to Saddam’s regime as much as it was to the Shaw of Iran, who was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, an AP story in 2003 states that Osama Bin Laden “denounced Saddam’s secular, socialist al-Baath party as ‘infidels.’… Saddam is a Stalinist not a Islamic fundamentalist.

And now we are reaping the rewards of thousands of body bags filled with terrorists

And so are they, 1,800+ and American dead and counting, not to mention the thousands of wounded and mentally disturbed veterans coming home from the war, many of whom will never walk again or have a life that resembles anything near normal. For what? To stop Iraq from making biological-chemical WMDs, WMDs that we already know Iran, Syria, and Libya have? Again, Iraq was a minor player in WMD, since they didn’t the capacity to produce nuclear material like Iran does. And sure, freeing the Iraqi people is a noble cause but that’s not the rational we were given to invade Iraq “before” the war.

Also, a substantial number of the “terrorists” your talking about are Iraqi’s who were not terrorists before the war. A good chunk of these insurgents are former Bath party loyalists or average Iraqis. This wasn’t so much true early on in the insurgency, but it is now, as Iraqis swell their ranks. Technically, when you’re fighting for your own country and you attack enemy troops or civilian collaborators on your own soil, your an insurgent, not a terrorist. It’s either that or you’d have to reclassify the french, polish, and other underground resistance movements against the Nazi’s as “terrorists”, because their tactics were pretty much the same as the Iraqi insurgents.

What’s this “chickenhawk” crap. I served over 12 years in the US Army and I’ve also been to Iraq (Baghdad), Israel (West-Bank), and Kosovo as a war videographer (filmmaker). What about you?

You are using the chickenhawk fallacy of argument against me. Remember?  Here...let me refresh your memory

As for likwidshoe, i think you should spin that hat around, shave your head, throw out your hash pipe, and march yourself down to the recruiting station and signup to spend some quality time in Iraq, before you start asking me for proof.

As to whether or not I’ve been to the places you’ve mentioned: it doesn’t matter and has no bearing on the conversation.

And so are they, 1,800+ and American dead and counting, not to mention the thousands of wounded and mentally disturbed veterans coming home from the war, many of whom will never walk again or have a life that resembles anything near normal. For what? To stop Iraq from making biological-chemical WMDs, WMDs that we already know Iran, Syria, and Libya have? Again, Iraq was a minor player in WMD, since they didn’t the capacity to produce nuclear material like Iran does.

What do you want us to do?  Say that, along with the rest of the world’s intelligence, we were wrong on the WMD bit and therefore we shouldn’t have invaded?  And since we aren’t invading every country right now that has these capabilities, that we shouldn’t be in Iraq?

And sure, freeing the Iraqi people is a noble cause but that’s not the rational we were given to invade Iraq “before” the war.

We were given many reasons.  WMDs are far from the only reason.

SR, you have stated you have a great deal of expirence, through the US Army, peace keeping for the UN, traveling and working throughout the mid-east. And now you want people to believe that giving terrorists what they say they want will end terror. I know that the majority of Palestinians don’t want terrorism. It is that minority that is in control. At every call to prayer they call for the deaths of ALL jews. As for Arafat, he was not who I was referencing, and as an aside he was not palestinian, he was Eygptian, I was refering to the thousands of Wahabist deathwhorshippers who continually kill and maim THEIR OWN WOMEN AND CHILDREN in order to remain in power. Not as the heads of governments, no. They keep the populations of whole countries in a state of terror. Why? Because it makes their pathetic little peckers hard. That is as good a reason as any they will spout. They keep large sections of the population illiterate and then tell them God wants them to live in poverty and disease. Then they tell them"look,look at those who live better than you, it is because they have stolen what is yours. KILL THEM!” I don’t know what has happened in your life to lead you down this path. You need to tear the scales from your eyes. Negotiating with terrorists will not bring peace. And the Palestinians will not stop when they have their own"state". They will stop when every jew is dead, and the world entire is Moslem.

"studentrights” said, But the point I’d like to make to you is that whether Iraq had WMDs or not, Iraq did not have links to terror against the United States.

You lose your credibility when you repeatedly claim that “Iraq did not have links to terror against the United States”.  Ever hear of Ayman al-Zawahiri?

SR:

Look, you can either believe the 9/11 commission report or not, which was incidentally chaired by a Republican and found no Iraqi links to 9/11.

Why do people use this argument anymore?  Rob, how do I search the comments to find the 30 other times we tore this notion to shreds??????

Sure Iraq had links to terror, so does every country in the middle-east. But they were not found to have links to terror against the United States or specifically 9/11. Also, it was the CIA led “Iraq Survey Group” that issued the final government report on Iraqi WMD’s not the 9/11 commission.

Why do you convolute the issue so?  We had a cease fire against Iraq… Stratigicly, we are now in a position of some influence in that region.  We are fighting a culture that respects strength and detests weakness.  If you really have the experience you have, I’d think you’d know more about that.  That said let me add:  If you are who you claim to be then I give you great deference.  I will surrender my place in line or seat on a bus to anyone in uniform.  I respect what you’ve done to better our nation.  That doesn’t mean I HAVE to agree with you, nor do I have to even listen to your position on some issue. 

Besides, if having WMD and links to terror are a reason to invade a country, we’ll have to conquer the entire middle-east. Because any country with the ability to produce industrial chemicals and/or pharmaceuticals, can easily produce chemical-biological WMDs in short period of time. The capability to produce nuclear material on the other hand is almost impossible to hide and certainly can’t be haul it off in a handful of trucks.

It is pretty cool that we took over 2 countries that border the ones you mentioned, huh?  And, oh, what did Libya do recently? 

Iraq was more of a supporter of terror than a sponsor, since Saddam provided money to families of suicide bombers, after they blew themselves up.

Did you just argue with yourself on purpose?  Let’s make this analogous to show you where you went wrong:  A supporter is like a fan of a baseball team.  They go to the games… cheer on the team… A Sponsor is a person who PAYS you to do what you do… in this case, blow yourself up and take a bunch of people with you.  Thanks, I enjoyed the chuckle

But he has never been shown to be a sponsor of terror against the United States.

Right… he didn’t try to assassinate Bush… nope… not him…

And as I’ve stated before, radical Islam was a threat to Saddam’s regime as much as it was to the Shaw of Iran, who was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, an AP story in 2003 states that Osama Bin Laden “denounced Saddam’s secular, socialist al-Baath party as ‘infidels.’… Saddam is a Stalinist not a Islamic fundamentalist.

True, perhaps that is why they were having talks with Osama’s crew… What are the chances???

And so are they, 1,800+ and American dead and counting, not to mention the thousands of wounded and mentally disturbed veterans coming home from the war, many of whom will never walk again or have a life that resembles anything near normal.

SARCASM OFF:  Horrible!!!!!!  I mean that!!!  I fully support disabled vets, and annually contribute toward charities to benefit the vets.  I thank them for their service and give GREAT deference to them in daily life!  I instill trust and the highest respect for our armed forces in my children.  I still think we have to do what we have to do to protect the CIVILIANS!  Our armed forces were formed with the intent of killing the enemy.  Sometimes they don’t make it back.  But in this case, the benefits to the WORLD Civilians outweigh the sacrifice being made today.  I really hope that this comes across correctly.  I hate the loss of human life, but to not stop these bastards means more 9/11’s everywhere that Islam doesn’t rule.  (until Islam rules, then it will be the last resort of Jews, Christians, Et Al) Terrorism can ONLY be stopped by creating prosperity and opposing those that oppress.  Islamic Terrorism is especially difficult because of its strong tie to faith.

For what? To stop Iraq from making biological-chemical WMDs, WMDs that we already know Iran, Syria, and Libya have? Again, Iraq was a minor player in WMD, since they didn’t the capacity to produce nuclear material like Iran does. And sure, freeing the Iraqi people is a noble cause but that’s not the rational we were given to invade Iraq “before” the war.

And Libya has backed up a few steps… Iran makes themselves more of a target, flushing out their leaders.  The people HATE their leaders and do not support aggression… We may spark an uprising by showing a free Iraq to Iran.

Also, a substantial number of the “terrorists” your talking about are Iraqi’s who were not terrorists before the war. A good chunk of these insurgents are former Bath party loyalists or average Iraqis. This wasn’t so much true early on in the insurgency, but it is now, as Iraqis swell their ranks. Technically, when you’re fighting for your own country and you attack enemy troops or civilian collaborators on your own soil, your an insurgent, not a terrorist.

Quite right!  I do try to label them appropriately!  Words (as we have already seen) need to be understood!  Terrorists are those who are not from there fighting against the Iraqi’s capability to enact a free and democratic government.  The Iraqi’s who are doing it are insurgents, and we also might define them as Traitors.  (Not that there is any real need to do so, and it might not be technically true yet)

It’s either that or you’d have to reclassify the french, polish, and other underground resistance movements against the Nazi’s as “terrorists”, because their tactics were pretty much the same as the Iraqi insurgents.

Um, Did they specifically target Civilians or military installations and units?

Seth Yantiss, believe what you want to believe. But the both 9/11 report and and the report on WMDs go farther to support my position than they do yours.

:::SIGH:::  Not really, but okay.  The president NEVER said that there was a DIRECT TIE to Saddam.  Looks like the President was RIGHT!  Perhaps, Just perhaps you could take off the shitcolored glasses for a minute and realize that INDIRECT ties to ANY TERRORIST was good enough.  We had a CEASE FIRE! 

Your not one of those people still hoping for Geraldo Rivera to something in Al Capone’s vault, are you?

Yes, yes… getting right on that.  It’s SOOOOOOOOO much better to convince yourself that the weapons NEVER existed right???  We know for a fact that they had a lot.  We NEVER saw any of it destroyed.  NO ONE seems to know where they are, so they MUST NOT HAVE EVER EXISTED!  Smart… you make me feel most dumb!  I am now humbled and must retire for the eve… Night all!

Seth Yantiss wrote…

That’s pretty funny!!! You provide conjecture and hypothesis to prove that my conjecture and hypothesis is wrong! HA!

Thanks, but I am going to continue to believe that Saddam (even he believed it) had weapons and that they are now missing, yet to be found.

I don’t really see that any PROOF can be had either way, so I am going to err on the side of caution.

2 questions though… Where did the Sarin come from? and Why did Saddam constantly try to hide stuff from the inspectors?

Seth Yantiss, believe what you want to believe. But the both 9/11 report and and the report on WMDs go farther to support my position than they do yours. Your not one of those people still hoping for Geraldo Rivera to something in Al Capone’s vault, are you?

Geraldo TV Special
The Mystery of Al Capone’s vault. Where Geraldo does a live TV special about the excavation of Capone’s last-known vault. What could it contain, money, guns, a body? To Geraldo’s on-screen chagrin (and all our disappointment), only a bottle and some dirt was found. Still a live let-down.

But the point I’d like to make to you is that whether Iraq had WMDs or not, Iraq did not have links to terror against the United States. Bush painted Iraq as some sort of impending threat, which makes little sense in the face of threats coming from North korea and Iran, both of whom have nuclear materials and and/or links to terror, in addition to possessing biological-chemical weapons.

As for the Sarin, it could be a left over from the Iran-Iraq war or more than likely that the shell could have come from Iran or Syria, which are now know or had been know to be helping the insurgents. From what I’ve read, experts seem to believe it’s a “leftover” from Hussein’s pre-Gulf War stockpile.

SR: not to put too fine a point on it, but I said that it was an “unsophisticated (and somewhat misinformed) view of the issues”. That was not an attack on your character (which you apparently took it to be), it’s my opinion about the words you posted.

By the way, since you seem to think it means something, I too am an Army vet, and I too have been to Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait.

You state:

While it’s true that their has never been a state called Palestine, it’s one of the historical names of that land which predates the Roman occupation, a name commonly used right up to the end of the “British Mandate of Palestine” in 1947.

Oops! Now it’s your turn to “stand corrected”. The name “Palestine” was created in 135 by the Romans, so it could not have possibly predated them. Before that the land was called Judea.

You state that there was anger by the Palestinians that the Jews were going to get 55% of the land. How inconvenient for you to “stand corrected” again! The Palestinians already had gotten 75% of the orignal Britiah Mandate of Palestine in 1923. Where do you think Jordan came from? So with the additional land that the UN decided to grant them for a 2nd state in 1947, the Palistinians would have had a total of 86.25% of the original (pre 1923 partition) Palestine. I say “would have had” because while the Jews accepted the plan, the Palistinians rejected it as not enough! They wanted ALL of the land.

You said:

In fact, I was all for the second invasion of Iraq in 2003 but only on the principle of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam

Then it must warm the cockles of your hearth that that was, indeed, one of several stated goals all along. Those of us who actually listen when our President speaks have know that all along, and if you don’t know that a quick Google search will have you “standing corrected” in no time!

You go on to say:

The 9/11 commission found “no evidence” of a link between Iraq and 9/11.

Too bad I never mad that assertation. Oh no, you’re “standing corrected” once again!

I did assert that Saddam had a provable connetion to terrorism, a point you graciously go on to prove for me when you posted:

THOMAS KEAN (R), 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that’s what our staff has found. Now, it doesn’t mean there weren’t al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years.

How does it feel to “stand corrected”...by yourself!

Haven’t made it to bed yet…

How does it feel to “stand corrected”…by yourself!

There seems to be a pattern… SR: What point will you make then disprove for us next.  We eagerly await.  Baited breath and all that…

2Hotel9,

Nice ad hominems.  Was it you accusing me of being immature a few threads back?

Last I heard, Bali wasn’t part of the United States court system.  I was referring to American courts, which the article I linked to referred to as well.  Anyways, three of the bombers have been sentenced to death, more to life in prison.  I haven’t heard any news of them being released next year.  Can you link to a news story about that?

Studentrights,

It’s hard to convince anyone here that Saddam was not in cahoots with Osama. Taking isolated incidences and circumstantial evidence to extremes in order to justify invading Iraq because of terrorism is pretty common.  (For instance, the Atta/Saddam-intelligence-guy-in-Venice thing.)

What I want to know is, why did we care about Saddam?  Saddam didn’t bomb us.  Osama bin Laden did.  HE masterminded the attacks on the US.  Saddam may have approved, but he didn’t run the show - bin Laden did.  Why haven’t we found him yet?  Iraq is a distraction from the real goal of taking down the terrorist who should be the ace of spades in everyone’s deck.

I mean, yeah, it’s nice we liberated Iraq and all that, but why Iraq?  Why not Myanmar or some other war-stricken country?

You are using the chickenhawk fallacy of argument against me. Remember? Here…let me refresh your memory… As to whether or not I’ve been to the places you’ve mentioned: it doesn’t matter and has no bearing on the conversation.

likwidshoe and everyone else for that matter,

Personally it doesn’t matter to me whether you’ve served in the military or not. My Daughter’s not in the military nor is her boyfriend, to each their own. I also believe that you have a right to your opinion and I respect that.

But to have first hand experience of a subject can represent a depth of understand and knowledge about a something that can’t be attained from a distance. Or why would employers ask for people with experience? Because somethings can only be learned through experience. Would you want to be the patient of someone who was doing thei