Get off my property

[KafirChobee]

It is always the same. During the Vietnam conflict if one protested the war they were labeled "bleeding-heart-liberal-commies" by the honorable VP Agnew - others took up his battle cry, even after he was dismissed on corruption charges. That is until the "silent majority" proved to be against the war as much as the vocal college students and "VN vets against the war". When the middle class began turning up at the rallys, it became difficult to claim they were all a buncha traitors to the noble cause of a free Vietnam (even tho it had been ruled by one military junta after another after the assassination of Diem) then. But, for some it was impossible to leave the "traitor" philosophy and turn to one of reason (or atleast, acknowledgement that we were in an unwinnable war). It remains the same today. Only today, it has yet to be proven that we can leave safely and lose what ever we think we have gained (access to the northern oil fields), a military hold in the middle-east (Haliburton has been given contracts to build 14 permanent bases in Iraq - but, you already know that).

To protest against an illegal war, is not being a traitor - it is a patriotic stance against the corruption that led our boys to war without a true reason or justifiable purpose. Which is now: the spread of democracy ... vs the original that Saddam was 45 minutes away with WMD he intended to use to destroy us (our way of life? - which they hate us for according to Bush43).

To equate that Mrs. Sheehan's actions are equal to siding with the enemy is ludicrous. It is simply bringing out the old format used in the Vietnam War (by the same sponsors of military incursions) to justify their actions by demonizing anyone that disagrees with them. It works for a while, until those that originally agreed with their premise see thru it - as the toll of soldiers lives being lost can no longer be justified by accusing others for it. Sooner than later, Bush43 must take responsability for his actions - I believe that is all Mrs. Sheehan is asking for.

Bush, is again the deer in the headlights - as he was on 9/11 for 7 minutes in a classroom after being told "America is under attack". He doesn't know how to respond, so he figures if he does nothing and leaves it to his minions to defile Mrs. Sheehan as being a tool for his enemies - it will all just go away. Like the DeLay affair, the Roves affair, the WMD, his and Cheney's ties to Haliburton and Enron, etc, etc, etc. He is banking on the short term memories of his constituents to do as they have always done - follow blindly and believe the propagations of the right-wing media.

It may work, again. Who knows? Expect a new change of menu soon - is how they generally get something off the front page and back on the obituaries where they believe they belong. Maybe they can bring back the boat-people ads against Kerry. What ever it will be, it will have a modecum of truth to it, but be trailed by a string of innuendo and lies. Is how they work, if you haven't noticed.

[Adrian II]

Lincoln would have had little time for Mrs. Sheehan - other then to feel sorry for the loss of her child. Which is exactly what the Suspending of Writ of Habeas Corpus shows.

The suspension was issued to deal with people who 'aided and comforted the enemy', not with bereaved mothers who questioned the necessity of their sons' deaths. In fact I dare you to come up with one example of the latter in Lincoln's career. He was tough whenever it was necessary, but he was also a gentleman and he was compassionate whenever it was possible in ways that our own day and age seems to have forgotten -- in that sense, the historians I quoted surely have it right.

I question her motives not her loyalties.

And I question the President's motives. I saw a letter in The New York Times that adequately sums up what is wrong in that Crawford picture:

A Soldier's Mother Waits in Crawford (5 Letters)
Published: August 17, 2005
To the Editor:

I found President Bush's comments last Saturday callous when he defended his decision not to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a soldier killed in Iraq.

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say," he said.

But then this president, under whose orders more than 1,840 of our troops will never be able to go on with their lives, had the temerity to add, "But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

In "Lives Blown Apart" (column, Aug. 15), Bob Herbert recounts the heroic story of a soldier, Cpl. Bobby Rosendahl, who has been wounded and maimed in Iraq - one of more than 10,000 similar casualties.

His brave mother says that she will stay with her son until he "is ready to go on with his life."

There are various ways a person "can go on with his life." The way the true heroes of this unfortunate war, and their loved ones, are - or are not - going on with their lives should be honored with compassion.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is so stupid. He met with her, just like every other parent who requests time with her! Here is what she said afterward:

'I now know [Bush is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith. For the first time in 11 weeks, we felt whole again. That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together.'

Why in the world would he give her extra priveledges after shes obviously become a whore of michael moore? Why would he allow her to spin any meeting they had?

The left smells blood, and as usual, distorts things until they get their kill.

[Redleg]

The suspension was issued to deal with people who 'aided and comforted the enemy', not with bereaved mothers who questioned the necessity of their sons' deaths. In fact I dare you to come up with one example of the latter in Lincoln's career. He was tough whenever it was necessary, but he was also a gentleman and he was compassionate whenever it was possible in ways that our own day and age seems to have forgotten -- in that sense, the historians I quoted surely have it right.

And would you care to quess how many anti-war protestors were arrested because of that suspension. It seems that you want to use Lincoln's compassion to widows and mothers of soldiers who were killed from the reality of how the anti-war protestors were treated by the North. You brought Lincoln into the discussion to make a point about compassion - but face it Lincoln's adminstration was much worse on protestors and the anti-war crowd then Bush. Think the New York roits which were partly based upon opposition to the draft laws - where soldiers fired into the crowd.

And I question the President's motives. I saw a letter in The New York Times that adequately sums up what is wrong in that Crawford picture:

A Soldier's Mother Waits in Crawford (5 Letters)
Published: August 17, 2005
To the Editor:

I found President Bush's comments last Saturday callous when he defended his decision not to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a soldier killed in Iraq.

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say," he said.

But then this president, under whose orders more than 1,840 of our troops will never be able to go on with their lives, had the temerity to add, "But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

In "Lives Blown Apart" (column, Aug. 15), Bob Herbert recounts the heroic story of a soldier, Cpl. Bobby Rosendahl, who has been wounded and maimed in Iraq - one of more than 10,000 similar casualties.

His brave mother says that she will stay with her son until he "is ready to go on with his life."

There are various ways a person "can go on with his life." The way the true heroes of this unfortunate war, and their loved ones, are - or are not - going on with their lives should be honored with compassion.

Yes indeed question President Bush's intent - that is your right granted by your government and more important to Mrs. Sheehan it is her right granted by the constitution of this nation. It also gives me the right to question her motives and statement under that same condition.

When she makes her issue into a political agenda - which she has by her own statements - it gives me the right to discuss her agenda in civil discourse by the same amendment that allows her to question the President.

I find it amazing that you defend her right to question the President - a right that I have not advocating being denied her, but it seems from your tone and your posts - that you would like to deny me the right to question her motives.

How very noble of you.

[Adrian II]

The left smells blood, and as usual, distorts things until they get their kill.

Aren't we distorting things a little bit ourselves, Panzerjager? Here is the wording of an original story in The Reporter after the Sheehans visited to the President:

Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville. Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country. "That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."
[snip]
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected. For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle. For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

So it was the trip home with her husband -- a much-needed reprieve after months of commemorative events and reporters' questions -- that made them feel whole again. But they were critical even then. Read on:

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place. But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

Now she is back and she wants an answer to those 'difficult questions'. And 60% of Americans want to hear that answer, too. That is of course the real problem that Bush is facing. Until now he managed to be seen siding, shoulder to shoulder, with the armed forces and their families. Now that facade is being pierced by those very same people.

Oh, and writing on someone's blog doesn't make her a whore. You should wash your mouth for that, young man, if only because this is a PG13 site. At least, that is what I am told by moderators every time I accidentally use that four-letter word for excrement.

[Redleg]

Oh Adrain you should of dug up that old article - lets go back to comparing Lincoln's compassion with President Bush's. You alluded to the theory that President Bush is solely lacking in that area as regards to that aspect.

In your own words

Well, there we have it -- good ol' Abe comforting a war widow and granting her family no less than two discharges. Even if we take this story with a lump of salt -- and we have to -- you will agree that it is a far cry from the callous treatment you suggested.

It seems old George Bush is not near as callous as your attempting to make him out to be. From the article you linked

"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

Futhermore you truely are not as well versed on Lincoln as you need to be to make such statements

Those quotes tell us nothing about Lincoln's attitude toward mothers of dead Union soldiers, do they? They show that Lincoln had little time for people who openly sided with the enemy. No purprise there, I'm afraid.

He also had little time for people who were openly against the war, nor those who were against the draft. In fact one can say he even more ruthless then the current adminstration since he did suspend the Writ of Hapeas Corpus

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Compassion is no longer the issue.

The moment she took her case to the media and to the blogs, meeting with her ceased to be a useful choice.

If Bush meets with her, he allows her to bash him, berate him, and attack his policy with him as a centerpiece. She then goes beyond the status of Bush detractor and becomes anti-Bush icon -- an even more powerful media tool to use in 2006.

She's doing that now, but has no centerpiece, which somehwat limits the impact.

If he doesn't meet with her, Bush is pilloried no worse than he will be anyway and has a greater chance of seeing this story die off in 3-10 days rather than 3-6 weeks. This would also limit the 2006 impact.

SF

[PanzerJaeger]

Aren't we distorting things a little bit ourselves, Panzerjager?

Only as much as you are - as Redleg pointed out. She met with him and said exactly what I posted she said. Now shes changed her story after meeting with moore. The soldier's father, stepfather, and stepmother completely disagree with what she is doing and state emphatically that that would not be what the soldier wanted his death to be used for.

Oh, and writing on someone's blog doesn't make her a whore. You should wash your mouth for that, young man, if only because this is a PG13 site. At least, that is what I am told by moderators every time I accidentally use that four-letter word for excrement.

I dont know any better word to describe her with. To use your own son's death to make political points directly counter to his beliefs simply because miky and the left tell her to is disgusting. Would gutter tramp be a better description for such a horrible person?

[Adrian II]

It seems that you want to use Lincoln's compassion to widows and mothers of soldiers who were killed from the reality of how the anti-war protestors were treated by the North.

I quoted from a history book on Lincoln's compassion with a war widow; you haven't come up with a single quote on that issue at all. Sure, Lincoln could be tough when necessary. On the other hand he was known for his clemency with court-martialled soldiers. His character wasn't black and white as you paint it. I am sure he would have had no trouble explaining the case for war to a widow. That is another difference between him and Bush.

(..) you would like to deny me the right to question her motives.

I am not denying your rights or anyone else's.

I question the President's motives. He is referring to the sacrifice of American soldiers all the time and justifying the continued military presence in Iraq with their sacrifice, so why couldn't Sheehan question the sacrifice of her own son in return? She is making a political point, of course, but for her and a growing number of other parents it is a personal matter as well. The two can not be separated. And the opinion of other Sheehan family members is neither here nor there. The whole affair is politically painful and damaging because 60% of the nation is watching over Sheehan's shoulder. That's what is bugging most Republican papers and bloggists, and that is why you get these references to Sheehan as a traitor, a whore, and what not. That is character assassination.

[Redleg]

I quoted from a history book on Lincoln's compassion with a war widow; you haven't come up with a single quote on that issue at all. Sure, Lincoln could be tough when necessary. On the other hand he was known for his clemency with court-martialled soldiers. His character wasn't black and white as you paint it. I am sure he would have had no trouble explaining the case for war to a widow. That is another difference between him and Bush.I am not denying your rights or anyone else's.

That is because I do not need to come up with a quote about Lincoln's compassion - I don't doubt he was a compassionate person. The quotes I used show that he was more strict on anti-war protestors - to include the draft protestors then President Bush could even dream of being. Lincoln had people arrested for protesting the war by proxy most of the time. But he did suspend the Writ of Hapeas Corpus with the provision to (taken straight from the linked document already posted) their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, which seems to be a point you first brought up and now want to ignore. But then that is my opinion on what you wrote in this paragraph,

And as for Bush, I don't think Abe Lincoln would have treated the mother of a dead Union soldier this way. Bush gives the impression that he is afraid of her. And Sheehan is starting to make the news the world over.

Like I stated initially Lincoln would have arrested her for her action after the initial meeting.

I question the President's motives. He is referring to the sacrifice of American soldiers all the time and justifying the continued military presence in Iraq with their sacrifice, so why couldn't Sheehan question the sacrifice of her own son in return? She is making a political point, of course, but for her and a growing number of other parents it is a personal matter as well. The two can not be separated. And the opinion of other Sheehan family members is neither here nor there. The whole affair is politically painful and damaging because 60% of the nation is watching over Sheehan's shoulder. That's what is bugging most Republican papers and bloggists, and that is why you get these references to Sheehan as a traitor, a whore, and what not. That is character assassination.

No problem - but you also must allow me to critize her postion without demonizing me. I have not made a character assassination on this individual - I disagree with her, I question her motives - but unlike other people I refuse to demonize her because she questions the President. She is entitled to question the President - I got absolutely no problem with her sitting out by the Crawford Ranch to present her case everyday to the President. But at the same time she is doing it - I get to question her motives and her actions because she is placing herself in the spotlight for me to look at.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Hey, can we give her an honorary membership to the Guild, she's fit right in it appears.
I guess she still has not figured out that her son CHOSE to join the military. Oh well, another lefty nutcase getting a free pass by the Main Stream Media here in the States, nothing new...

[Goofball]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Hey, can we give her an honorary membership to the Guild, she's fit right in it appears.
I guess she still has not figured out that her son CHOSE to join the military. Oh well, another lefty nutcase getting a free pass by the Main Stream Media here in the States, nothing new...

Perhaps Ms. Sheehan isn't quite as fringe as the right would like to make her out to be:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...acodalogin=yes

In groups as small as 20 and as large as 1,000, Americans massed silently in almost 1,600 different locations last night, lighting candles of support for a woman who has become a catalyst for those opposed to the war in Iraq.

and:

Today, Sheehan and her supporters are moving their encampment even closer to the Bush ranch.

Fred Mattlage, a Vietnam veteran and neighbour of Bush who opposes the Iraq war, has offered them the use of his land, which is only about 1.5 kilometres from the president's vacation home.

[Don Corleone]

First of all, Goofy, those numbers the Star is waving around came from MoveOn.Org. As they started the whole protest movemont, I'd hardly call them unbiased.

But let's give them their due. Let's really make our estimate in their favor.... 1600 vigils of 1000 members apiece (and my guess is only 1 or 2 were that large) still only adds up to 1.6million people. That's not even 0.5% of the population. Hell, the American Communist Party gets about 2,000,000 votes in national elections!

That being said, I feel bad for her. I think she's being manipulated by the anti-war movement, and when the grief settles, and she can see straight, she'll still hate the war, she'll still hate Bush, but, when faced with her accusations of "we're using nuclear weapons on the insurgents in Iraq" and "it wasn't the arabs that perpetrated 9/11, but Bush himself", she's going to ask herself "what the hell was I thinking?"

Looks like she's given up, btw. Drudgeport is reporting she's packing it in.

[Goofball]

First of all, Goofy, those numbers the Star is waving around came from MoveOn.Org. As they started the whole protest movemont, I'd hardly call them unbiased.

But let's give them their due. Let's really make our estimate in their favor.... 1600 vigils of 1000 members apiece (and my guess is only 1 or 2 were that large) still only adds up to 1.6million people. That's not even 0.5% of the population.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't your last two Presidential elections decided by equally skinny margins?

[Don Corleone]

That's a delta, not a total number. And again, 1.6million vigil-antes is a hell of an estimation in their favor.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't your last two Presidential elections decided by equally skinny margins?

Yes. The critical vote in Florida in 2000 featured a Bush win by fewer than 2000 votes -- with some estimates putting the margin below 500.

In 2004, Bush won Ohio -- the critical swing state -- by fewer than 160,000 votes. Had 80k switched direction.....



That being acknowledged, I duspect the Don is quite correct in that the 1k average is generous. With a population of roughly 280 millions (+10-20 million unregistered guests ), that's not exactly a powerful movement.

You want big numbers? Ask a typical group of yanks to recount the latest events in the Pitt - Anniston - Jolie affair or to give you the details on the McNabb - Owens feud. Relatively minor issues like life and death in Iraq and the possibility of democracy in the Middle East excite the news junkies but leave most of the population non-plussed.

SF

[Del Arroyo]

I hate to butt in, and I don't have time to read all of the lengthening back and forth between Redled and AdrianII-- but I have some comments.

To AdrianII-- Redleg has a point. There is a big difference between expressing grief and EXPLOITING grief. Sheehan is exploiting grief. She probably enjoys the attention and is seduced by the idea that she is doing something important. But she has compromised her integrity.

And, having read a bit about the civil war, I can concur that Sheehan's protest would have fallen under the definition of "aiding and comforting" the enemy in the minds of Union men at the time. Though not everyone who expressed dissent in the North was in fact silenced-- this was one fact which U.S. Grant commented on with annoyance (not protest) in his memoirs, while noting that the South seemed to be much stricter on this count.

To Redleg-- While your references to the Civil War are accurate, and while I realize you didn't bring it into the discussion, I will say that the Civil War was, in fact, a civil war. Think about it. It is a very different situation from a war against an external enemy.

DA

[Redleg]

To Redleg-- While your references to the Civil War are accurate, and while I realize you didn't bring it into the discussion, I will say that the Civil War was, in fact, a civil war. Think about it. It is a very different situation from a war against an external enemy.

DA

Oh I am very well aware what the differences are between the two conflicts. The context of the discussion with AdrianII was what would Lincoln have done with Mrs. Sheehan.

[Aenlic]

As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Strike For The South]

Just because someone supports the war dosent meen there a Chicken Hawk for some people its not feasible did you know only 59% of Americans age 17-25 would be Allowed into the military not to mention some of them have other circumstances. If you're agisant the war or how the president runs it fine just don't demonize a whole group

[Redleg]

As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Well since I am a disable vet myself - spent 12 years in the military in the Field Artillery served in combat in Desert Storm - and support the war. Am I a Chickenhawk.

Then my bother has done even more then I. A combat tour during Desert Storm, two peacekeeping tours to Bosina and Kosovo, and is currently in Kuwait training the Kuwaiti Military - about to return to the states to be assigned to a division about to go to Iraq - also supports the war - is he a Chickenhawk also.

You said something in another thread - but it seems here your not abiding by your own advice.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Better to be a Chickenhawk than just plain chicken

[Aenlic]

Now see? There some of you go again. Did I mention names? If you are of the right age to join the military and you're able to serve and you're rah-rah for the war and you haven't tried to sign up in spite of the desperate need for new recruits in the military right now, then you are a chicken hawk. If the military turns you down, then fine. There is no other excuse for letting someone else do your fighting. If you're in college, then put it off, go see your recruiter. It's that simple. If you don't meet ALL of those conditions, then you aren't a chicken hawk. Could it possibly be more clear? Those of you claiming my post fits you personally and then arguing with the above are having some difficulty with reading comprehension. I suggest remedial reading.

If you're pro-war and otherwise able to serve but you're in college, join the ROTC.

If you're pro-war and otherwise able to serve but you're making more money in the private sector and don't want to take lower military pay, then you're a scumbag chickenhawk letting others die for your cause while you enrich yourself.

Did I say that just because someone supports the war, then they're a chicken hawk? No. Duh.

Did I say that someone who supports the war and has already served in the military or is planning to serve or can't get in because of physical restrictions, etc is a chicken hawk? No. Duh.

Did I say that those who are able and are pro-war and go about pretending to be patriotic and then don't serve when they could serve are chicken hawks? Absolutely.

If the shoe fits, then wear it. If it doesn't fit, then stop trying it on there, Cinderella.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And I still say Better to be a Chickenhawk than just plain chicken . Just because someone supports the war and doesnt run to serve in the front lines doesnt make them chicken.

[Aenlic]

Yeah, it does. If that person is able to serve, and chooses not to do so, then he or she is first and foremost a hypocrite for supporting the war by mouth only while criticizing others for not supporting the war. Second, if that person's convictions aren't strong enough for them to put their life on the line for them, then they must not be particulary proud or sure of those convictions. They claim to support the military, and yet aren't willing to do more than support it with mere words and hyperbole and jingoism; the equivalent of sending them a nice card. The kind of people like that idiot who ran over the crosses and U.S. flags at the Sheehan protest with his pickup. Driving over a flag isn't patriotic in the least. And yet, I'll bet the yahoo who did it has spouted off more than once about other people's patriotism and gone off on people who want to burn the flag. Sheer, unambiguous hypocrisy. Makes me wonder if I'm the only sane person left in Texas.

Now, I'm not accusing anyone here of being in that category; but nothing is more disgusting than someone who criticizes another's patriotism when they have none of their own that isn't made from cheap plastic, empty rhetoric and false bravado. The military is desperately short on its recruiting goals, in all branches, thanks to this ill-conceived war in Iraq which is draining resources which could be used to actually fight terrorism. I have much more respect for someone who, through the strength of their convictions, is willing to protest the war while risking being called a traitor and a terrorist and unpatriotic and a liberal hippy and all manner of other nasty things, than I do for someone who just gives lip service to patriotism but doesn't really have anything behind the words other than hot air.

[scooter_the_shooter]

BS the air force and navy have met their goals with ease.....the air force quit recruiting for a month because of how many they were getting.(no one wants to be on the front lines with the army and marines)

[Devastatin Dave]

As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I did for 10 years. If your so against the United States and her allies being in Iraq or fighting terrorist, then get your terrorist sympothyzing, anti western, socialist loving, disctator worshipping ass over there and fight the "able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks" currently over there...

[KafirChobee]

Aenlic, I get your message and agree in part, if not entirely with your statements.

That the true ChickenHawks don't recognize themselves is understandable. That they want to intermix our troops (actually putting their lives on the line) with the label "ChickenHawks" is understandable. They want to confuse the real issue. That is, it is easier to spout patriotic phraseology than actually performing the duty of being a soldier in an already unpopular war.

ChickenHawk: Someone that supports a war, but finds ways (or has in his past) to avoid actually serving in it (or in one). Examples; Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush43 -ANG doesn't count, defending Texas against the NVA is a non-combatant scenario - G.W. Bush III (Jeb's boy), etc.

Actions speak louder than words. If one is a true believer, then prove it.

[Aenlic]

I did for 10 years. If your so against the United States and her allies being in Iraq or fighting terrorist, then get your terrorist sympothyzing, anti western, socialist loving, disctator worshipping ass over there and fight the "able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks" currently over there...

Another one with reading comprehension problems.

[Aenlic]

Aenlic, I get your message and agree in part, if not entirely with your statements.

That the true ChickenHawks don't recognize themselves is understandable. That they want to intermix our troops (actually putting their lives on the line) with the label "ChickenHawks" is understandable. They want to confuse the real issue. That is, it is easier to spout patriotic phraseology than actually performing the duty of being a soldier in an already unpopular war.

ChickenHawk: Someone that supports a war, but finds ways (or has in his past) to avoid actually serving in it (or in one). Examples; Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush43 -ANG doesn't count, defending Texas against the NVA is a non-combatant scenario - G.W. Bush III (Jeb's boy), etc.

Actions speak louder than words. If one is a true believer, then prove it.

Agreed in total, except for Rumsfeld. Even though I despise the man, he did serve a full term in the Navy. The others though, spot on.

I don't have a problem with people who choose not to serve. This is a free country, after all. My problem is with people who wholeheartedly support the war - vocally; but don't support it enough to put their own lives at risk. Those people, I despise. People like the Bush twins. They are of the right age. Why aren't they off helping Daddy make the world safe for Daddy's policies?