Cindy Sheehan

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

this, of course, is a marketing slogan for the war that has no discernable basis in fact.

been drinking the kool-aid again, have we?

Seen any terrorists attacks in the US lately knife?

Heard of any more mass murders in Iraq like the ones Saddam committed while the UN was sucking up oil for food bribes?

Your nearsightedness combined with your selective memory means you miss or forget many relevant occurrences or their absence.

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by theknife

the fact is that 80% of the mileage that this story has gotten is because Cindy Sheehan is staging this protest in Crawford, Texas, in front of an army of media who have nowhere to go as long as the Prez is there and absolutely nothing else to report on. if she had done this anywhere else, the story would have come and gone by now. from a strictly pr point of view, one could say it was a very clever move on her part - guaranteed coverage.

that being said, if her little circus keeps the hard questions about the war on the front page and in the mind of the public, then this event, political theater though it may be, will have done some good.

I know what you mean, but I guess I just dislike 'reality tv' razzamatazz.

Originally Posted by theknife

without question, the press has been asleep for years, but populist eruptions of sentiment can blow open doors that the press is not comfortable opening on thier own. if it takes a performing seal to get their attention, so be it. whatever it takes.

I suspect that when one sacrifices the content of an argument for the benefit of greater volume or exposure, you open yourself to the ravages of the varying media agendas - and none of them include pressurising Government... at least, not to the point of discomfort. I hope that Ms Sheehan's actions will keep the 'difficult questions' in the public's gaze (and maybe I was a little harsh in my opinion), but I doubt it will provide anythig more than tabloid titilation.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Sinner

Republic Jack, The USA is a Republic and it works just fine.....

still think you're living in ancient greece sinner? you’re obviously not living here. the us is a democracy and as for it's health, that issue is clearly a matter of great debate. sorry but your slogan is as unsubstantiated as it is superficial.


"Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referendum, open to all or most citizens. It is now commonly used as a synonym for liberal-democratic systems in nation- states. Most of these are parliamentary representative democracies, but there are many varieties of democracy, some still hypothetical. In recent years, definitions of democracy have broadened to include aspects of society and political culture in democratic societies, which are not a 'form of government'. The term 'democratic' is also used in a looser sense, to describe participatory decision-making in groups or organisations."

from wiki

"Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens."

from the us department of state.

- js.

[albed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

The United States of America—also referred to as the United States, the USA, the US, America, the States (colloquially), and Columbia (poetically)—is a democratic, federal republic of 50 states.


Fuck Jack this is high school stuff. Ever say the pledge of allegiance?


http://www.answers.com/republic&r=67

#

1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.

[Sinner]

Wrong Jack... One is Rule by Law the other is Rule by Majority....


Constitution of the United States of America
Article IV

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


also read --- Federalist Paper #10 by James Madison

[Mazer]

Oh man, not this tired discussion agian.

Tambs, you weren't too hash on the media for their dilution of the message. In my opinion people should question the media every bit as much as the media questions the government. Unfortunatly info-tainment drives up advertisement revenues, and as long as it's more profitable to toss softball questions at this or any administration then that's what they're going to do.

I blame this all on the Screenwriter's Guild strike a few years ago. Because of them TV producers couldn't get anybody to write a decent fictional show so they hoarked up a bunch of reality TV shows to fill the voids in their fall line-ups. Now the news agencies think they have to make real life compete with TV reality, and the only way to do that is to fake it up and make it look semi-scripted. The reporters there in Crawford are probably coaching Ms. Sheehan the way reality TV producers coach their 'contestants' off camera. If it weren't for them and their support (read: instigation) she would have given up after the first week.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by albed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

The United States of America—also referred to as the United States, the USA, the US, America, the States (colloquially), and Columbia (poetically)—is a democratic, federal republic of 50 states.


Fuck Jack this is high school stuff. Ever say the pledge of allegiance?


http://www.answers.com/republic&r=67

#

1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.

he can paste but he can't think.

- js.

Originally Posted by Sinner

Wrong Jack... One is Rule by Law the other is Rule by Majority....


Constitution of the United States of America
Article IV

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


also read --- Federalist Paper #10 by James Madison

ditto.

labels like definitions migrate and change in time. what we have here in the u.s. we call a democracy. as well as by the people it is defined as such by the united states government. canada may be another story. if you have a problem with a living language get out your quills and send a pigeon to chaucer.

- js.

[albed]

The authoritative references define the US as a Republic as you've seen Jack. You, of course, can call it whatever you want, just as you've done in the past.



http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...60&postcount=4

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

...in any event, the roots of gun ownership are deep and predate the very beginnings of the republic...
- js.

http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...9&postcount=59

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

luckilly for the republic the whole theocratic charade is also offensive to at least some republicans..

Seems you actually do know the proper term. Maybe you just forget it on occasion and need to make something up.

Be sure to bring up the subject in your next campaign so the ignorant trailer trash will know you're one of them and not one of those educated, booklearned, city folk.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by albed

The authoritative references define the US as a Republic as you've seen Jack. You, of course, can call it whatever you want, just as you've done in the past.

Seems you actually do know the proper term. Maybe you just forget it on occasion and need to make something up.

Be sure to bring up the subject in your next campaign so the ignorant trailer trash will know you're one of them and not one of those educated, booklearned, city folk.

you have learned a great lesson grasshopper: if jack says it must be true.


unlike you i’m not arguing for rigid definitions – i'm arguing against them. nowhere did i deny a republic. the country was founded by those whose idealized versions of political platforms borrowed heavily from the ancient greeks. 200 years later the differences are lost to many and we say, and yes the united states government says, we have a democracy. bush & co aren’t sending our fair girls and boys to die in iraq to install a republic, not in speeches i heard on any campaign trails, whether thru manicured fields of grecian palaces or rutted roads of rusting trailer parks. a distinction lost on you perhaps, since this is connecticut, and our mobiile homes are worth more than your mcmansions.

- js.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

he can paste but he can't think.

- js.



ditto.

labels like definitions migrate and change in time. what we have here in the u.s. we call a democracy. as well as by the people it is defined as such by the united states government. canada may be another story. if you have a problem with a living language get out your quills and send a pigeon to chaucer.

- js.

Well until they amend the Constitution, I will call your form of Government a Democratic Republic. You can be as condescending has you want too, it won’t change my mind. I never was one to follow the crowd. Oh, and it is different here in Canada, Canada has a Socialist Government.

Sorry Mazer, went off topic.

I watched Cindy last night in an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN and I have to say she really is not an intelligent person. She avoided the tuff questions and really doesn’t know what she is talking about. I think she is either a racist or somebody’s puppet. She absolutely does not deserve a second meeting with George W. Bush.

[daddydirt]

Grieving Bush Protestor Has No Exit Strategy
by Scott Ott

(2005-08-16) -- Cindy Sheehan, the protestor whose son died fighting for freedom in Iraq, today acknowledged that she has "no exit strategy" for getting out of what some have called the "quagmire in Crawford" outside of the Texas ranch of President George Bush.

"My opponent is more entrenched than I expected," said Mrs. Sheehan, whose vigil has focused national attention on the ability of the news media to focus national attention on Mrs. Sheehan. "I'm still committed to victory, but it may take longer than I thought at first."

Mrs. Sheehan said she is willing to "pay any price, bear any burden" to get a second meeting with Mr. Bush.

[albed]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1044611



Woman sets herself on fire protesting Israel's Gaza Strip withdrawal.

hint-hint-hint

[albed]

Originally Posted by Sinner

I watched Cindy last night in an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN and I have to say she really is not an intelligent person. She avoided the tuff questions and really doesn’t know what she is talking about. I think she is either a racist or somebody’s puppet. She absolutely does not deserve a second meeting with George W. Bush.

I saw a little: '- army bases the size of Sacramento in Iraq'. She lives in California so she should know how big Sacramento is. She just doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. Not by a long shot.

[theknife]

yet somehow she effortlessly manages to make the Prez look like a shmuck, every day that she's out there. this in turn drives the wing nuts crazy and they work overtime to bury her in sleaze:

...a left wing media whore in the form of a grieving mother.

my my - all that vitriol and all she did was refuse to grieve quietly after her son got killed. it's a shame the right can't get that worked up about stuff that really matters.

[albed]

Excluded by theknife:
"Last year, the President met with Mrs. Sheehan, comforted her, and grieved with her. At the time, Mrs. Sheehan thought the President had done well and appreciated him. Enter August, no major news, and a media still smarting over the President's re-election despite everything they threw at him. Cindy Sheehan returns entering stage right -- this time a left wing media whore in the form of a grieving mother."

"While Casey's grandparents, aunts, uncles, and numerous cousins having issued a statement saying Sheehan "now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation,"


Man, what a smear knife! From her own relatives no less.


"Concurrently, the media and the left ignore those parents of the fallen who are offended by Mrs. Sheehan, support the President, or otherwise recognize that Mrs. Sheehan's actions discredit and undermine the work so many fallen soldiers works hard for. Those people just do not make the story flow like the left wants."


Really selective coverage wouldn't you say? But you're pretty selective yourself. Good link though, thorough and accurate.

[theknife]

she's like the teflon leftie.... nothing sticks on her because nothing can challenge her fundamental legitamacy: her son died for a lie. i think deep down, the radical right knows this and it scares them - why else would they get so hysterical about her?

[albed]

Yep. They're so hysterical they go around shouting:

"HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT ME, I'M GRIEVING!"

"BANG-BANG-BANG" "HEY MASS MEDIA COME OUT AND LOOK AT ME GRIEVING OVER HERE!"

"ALL YOU LEFT WING RADICALS COME TO TEXAS AND JOIN ME WHILE I'M GRIEVING."




She makes people hysterical alright.

[Mazer]

What lie, knife?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

What lie, knife?

well, since you asked...

there is The Big Lie, which is how i've come to fondly regard the Iraq War, which is characterized by a whole bunch of smaller lies, such as those listed below:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

[Sinner]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002