Cindy Sheehan QUITS

[EagleSmack]

Of course I can comprehend. To use Farrakahn as some referrence at all is just plane goofy. But that's your choice. Someone the hates something in the first place has an agenda and thus can not be given as a credible source.

For someone to be so upset at the Democrats that it takes precedence over the real problem of the war in Iraq, they can't have the best interest of the troops, the nation or anything other than partisan hatchet job at heart.

People are getting killed each day in Iraq America and Iraqi so why is it that the most important thing is Democrat lies and punishment for them? Why aren't you worried about the lies the Administration tells to start, and continue the war? Should that at least get some consideration if this whole lie business is so damned important?

What has begun now is an all out war on the home front to pin the blame for this war on some group. How it can be anyone's fault other than Bushco is beyond me, yet this is what it's come to. Seems to me that anyone in Washington who might actually care about the people getting chewed up in the human meat grinder, is being told point blank to shut the hell up about it and toe party lines.

So why don't they use the War Measures Act? Simple, the same reason Bushco won't just admit defeat and bring the military home. Because then it means they have to take control of this clusterhump and without all the controls, have to bring everyone home and own up to the blunder.

Too may patriots not enough Americans.

Look... every elcted democrat has wiped their promises clean from their sites as they always have done. Look at the anti-war webpages and see how furious they are at the newly elected democratic congress for breaking their promise to end the war.

The link was not Farrakan speaking himself... it basically stated with quotes from democrats that have turned out to be just words to get elected.

We have not been defeated in Iraq and Bush believes that it is not lost regardless of what you believe. The Democrats attended the war rallies, spoke out how if they were elected and controlled congress they would end the war. They lied...plain and simple. Now the Democratic Presidential Candidates are doing the same thing.

The Democrats demanded an end for the war and said they would do something about it if elected. Now all they do is keep telling the President to pull the troops out like they always did. What is new? They want the GOP Administration to do the dirty work that they promised their constituients. It isn't going to happen.

You expect Bush to cave in to what is shaping up to be an even weaker congress than the last. They are pretty much giving him everything he wanted that is why the anti-war crowd is either giving up or remaining silent. Where are they?

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

ES you say"The Democrats attended the war rallies, spoke out how if they were elected and controlled congress they would end the war. They lied...plain and simple"
Enlighten me...did not Bush use his veto power to squash their antiwar agenda outta congress......

 

[normbc9]

Cindy Sheehan just announced her candidacy for the race to be elected and unseat Nancy Pelosi here in California. her principle backer is daniel Berrigan a former Jesuit priest who was involved in pacifistpeace demonstrations years ago on the east coast. She says she had very limited campaign funds but knows those who were with her at her ranch in Crawford, TX will help her consideraby. All I can say is it is nice to see her have something to dod besides stand in land at the County ANC office waiting for her next welfare check. Those who relocated to California from Texas need our best thoughts as they go throught the required waiting period so they can qualify for welfare here too.

 

[EagleSmack]

That ought to be sweet! I love when liberals attack liberals.

 

[Curiosity]

Shhhhhh Eaglesmack for youreyes only hehe

Mother Sheehan has just been invited on a cruise by Karl Rove - the two of them alone - destination unknown. Now that he's resigned he has finally cleared some together time....

 

[thomaska]

Shhhhhh Eaglesmack for youreyes only hehe

Mother Sheehan has just been invited on a cruise by Karl Rove - the two of them alone - destination unknown. Now that he's resigned he has finally cleared some together time....

That is nasty.ukeright:

 

[Curiosity]

Thomaska

You are right! It was retchingly awful.......

 

[gopher]

```Why aren't you worried about the lies the Administration tells to start, and continue the war? Should that at least get some consideration if this whole lie business is so damned important?```


Not to the unpatriotic right wingers. All they care about is profit$. So long as they line their pockets with your tax dollars, nothing else matters to them.

Meanwhile, over 500 iraqis were killed within a matter of hours as Bush's ''surge'' continues to fail and his war is hopelessly lost:

http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=11444


But that only brings laughter and rapturous joy to the right wing Bush loving America haters.

 

[thomaska]

Shamelessly stolen from Bernard Goldberg's " Crazies to the left of me, Wimps to the Right"

Why do you think liberals never use the term "so-called" global warming but are always referring to the "so-called" war on terror? Is it because they fear a one-degree change in temperature over the next hundred years more than they fear being blown up by a terrorist next week? Is it because they think global warming is real and the war on terror is fake?

Well, in a word, yes. The fact is a lot of liberals think the war on terror is nothing more than a cynical Republican scare tactic carefully designed to trample all over our civil liberties. But Liberal's skepticism goes beyond that.

For a lot of liberals, it's personal. They simply hate George W. Bush. And that colors everything. If Bush says up, they say down. If he says white, they feel compelled to say black. And if he calls it "the war on terror" they have to call it the "so-called war on terror". They simply cannot help themselves. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if, in his inauguration speech, President Bush had said,"We must unite to combat global warming," liberals would have, from that moment on, referred to it as "so-called global warming".

Why do liberals hate Bush so much? It can't be just because of his politics. You think they'd suddenly love him if he signed the Kyoto Accords? Not a chance! It can't be because he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Everyone, including a whole gaggle of liberal Democrats said the exact same thing. They can't hate him, either, because he's against abortion. A lot of people are against abortion. So why do they detest him so much?

Because George W. Bush stands for a whole constellation of values and beliefs they grew up loathing. He's unapologetically religious, he wears his patriotism on his sleeve(and on his lapel); he thinks America is not only a good and moral nation, but better than anything they've got over there in Western Europe. They hate him because he doesn't read the books they read, or watch the television shows they watch; they hate him because he's from Texas; and of course, they hate his bad grammar, which the elites see as something akin to a character flaw or a birth defect. In other words, they hate him because they think he's stupid! I am constantly amazed by how such a "dumb" and "simple" guy as George W. Bush can drive so many "sophisticated" liberals around the bend.

All of this is also known as Bush Derangement Syndrome....

 

[Zzarchov]

IF terrorists were such a danger, then why did the war on terror not start years before it did?

Terrorists have been a grave concern since the 70's and later, worse than they are now, and more dangerous to boot. But there was no need for a war on terror up until now.. And now, these terrorists who kill less than bad driving, require the trampling of civil liberties.

Something which didn't have to be done when facing a ruthless enemy who could exterminate all life on earth. That was doable, but oh no! someone might blow up a handful of buildings every 15 years!

That is so much more severe (apparently) than total atomic armageddon, that THAT requires the end to the democratic way of life :\

 

[thomaska]

IF terrorists were such a danger, then why did the war on terror not start years before it did?

Terrorists have been a grave concern since the 70's and later, worse than they are now, and more dangerous to boot. But there was no need for a war on terror up until now.. And now, these terrorists who kill less than bad driving, require the trampling of civil liberties.

Something which didn't have to be done when facing a ruthless enemy who could exterminate all life on earth. That was doable, but oh no! someone might blow up a handful of buildings every 15 years!

That is so much more severe (apparently) than total atomic armageddon, that THAT requires the end to the democratic way of life :\

And who, lately, has been trying to get their hands on "Arma-get-it-on" materials?

 

[gopher]

Terrorists started their campaigns because of money and materiel they got from the CIA. This incontrovertible truth has been documented enough times but the right wing America haters attack anyone who dares to prove it.

Just look at the example of Iraq --- there wasn't any terrorism going on there until Bush invaded. Proof enough that it is the right wingers who are responsible for it.

 

[thomaska]

Terrorists started their campaigns because of money and materiel they got from the CIA. This incontrovertible truth has been documented enough times but the right wing America haters attack anyone who dares to prove it.

Just look at the example of Iraq --- there wasn't any terrorism going on there until Bush invaded. Proof enough that it is the right wingers who are responsible for it.

Except of course for the terrorism that Saddam Hussein Esq. was inflicting on his own people.

It is a bit provincial to not see that times and friendships change, while we may have given Saddam weapons back in the day it was only to keep the Xerxes wannabes in Iran in check.

This sort of thing has gone on since humans have been on earth. Its a little silly to try to perpetuate the idea that the Bush administration invented it. Or any American for that matter.

We've got serious disagreement on who hates America most, but the fact we can be like that is one of the "bennies" of living here.

 

[gopher]

```Except of course for the terrorism that Saddam Hussein Esq. was inflicting on his own .```

Perhaps you have forgotten the infamous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam after supplying him with the means to kill off all those innocent people.

As for who the America haters are, that's easy. You have one of two choices -- Bush or America. We patriots love America. All else have Bush.

 

[thomaska]

```Except of course for the terrorism that Saddam Hussein Esq. was inflicting on his own .```

Perhaps you have forgotten the infamous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam after supplying him with the means to kill off all those innocent people.

As for who the America haters are, that's easy. You have one of two choices -- Bush or America. We patriots love America. All else have Bush.

Well, bullets are easy to come by. And biological and chemical weapons (which the left swears never existed in Iraq, but sure did kill a lot of Kurds) are easy to make. Hell, you can make a toxic gas with brake fluid and chlorine tablets...

Whether it was Sarin gas, or sticks and stones, Saddam Hussein would have killed those innocent people either way.

And "Dubya" wasn't even Governor of Texas in 1983 when the left's favorite photo(Reagn Admin/Rumsfeld) was snapped.

But then again, the left hates Reagan too, for what he did to their Socialist Soviet heroes...

 

[gopher]

Who denied that the CIA supplied chemicals to Saddam? It is the America hating reich wing that does, not the left.

As for the Soviets, it was Republican Hoover that gave money to Lenin and entrenched them into power { op cit}. As always, terrorism and war exist because of money and materiel supplied by unpatriotic Republicans.

 

[thomaska]

Who denied that the CIA supplied chemicals to Saddam? It is the America hating reich wing that does, not the left.

As for the Soviets, it was Republican Hoover that gave money to Lenin and entrenched them into power { op cit}. As always, terrorism and war exist because of money and materiel supplied by unpatriotic Republicans.

And who ponied up some concrete, receipt in hand proof, that the Reagan administration gave chemicals to Iraq?

You are reaching all the way back to Hoover to justify your hate for the American way of life.

So who hates America more again?

And just as a snarky aside, since we're going back in time now...who were the biggest supporters of Slavery in the US?

(hint) Lincoln was republican...

 

[gopher]

Why are you projecting your hatred for America to me? I'm not a Republican, you are.

Which party supporting wage slavery and union busting today? (FDR was a Democrat ...)

 

[gopher]

the Great Satans:

 

[gopher]

Republican Ford and Hitlerian dictator Suharto:

Suharto killed far more people than did Saddam as Republicans rejoiced.