Cindy Sheehan is a liar who is NOT going away after all [Archive]

Navaros

07-24-2007, 05:59

Not too long ago I made a thread linking to an article written by Cindy Sheehan regarding that she was going away for good, which she herself entitled "Good Riddance to the Attention Whore".

However, it has now become clear that she was lying about that, and doesn't really intend to go away at all. :furious3:

The Liar and self-proclaimed 'Attention Whore' gets arrested and reveals her true agenda.
Sheehan arrested in impeachment protest

By NATASHA T. METZLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat's refusal to try to impeach President Bush.

Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers' office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.

"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable," Sheehan said outside of Conyers' office after the meeting. "And I for one am going to step up to the plate and run against Nancy Pelosi."

Sheehan and about 200 other protesters had walked to Conyers' office from Arlington National Cemetery. She said Conyers told her there weren't enough votes for impeachment to move forward on the issue.

Forty-five of Sheehan's fellow protesters also were arrested. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said that after they are processed, the arrested activists could each pay a $50 fine to be released.

"Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table," Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists before they began their march from the national cemetery.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, has been saying for two weeks that she would seek to oust Pelosi from office by running against her as an independent in her San Francisco district if Pelosi didn't change her mind by July 23 on trying to impeach Bush.

Conyers introduced a bill last term calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeaching Bush. Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq.

Strike For The South

07-24-2007, 06:01

If she wants to use her dead son as a tool let her. I wont be listening

Fragony

07-24-2007, 09:31

"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable"

Didn't Hillary Clinton vote in favour of the invasion? All was fine as long as she only attacked the republicans, hypocrites. Is good that they get some heat as well.

Ronin

07-24-2007, 09:56

who did what now?

English assassin

07-24-2007, 10:22

And the issue is?

This seems to be a woman, whose son was killed in the war, exercising a right to protest. Annoyingly enough, she seems to be able to get media attention for her protests, that is, she is able to protest effectively. Shock.

You may not like it or agree with her but her existence (if not her arrest) is a sign that you still live in a free(ish) society. Think of her like the miner's canary. When you stop hearing of things like this, then its time to worry.

Adrian II

07-24-2007, 10:37

And the issue is?The issue is that we are supposed to booh her all the time. You see, he dead son was never hers, he belonged to the U.S. government and George W. Bush all along. They can lie all they want, she can't. She has no business having an opinion about him, about the war or about anything apart from diapers and flower arranging.

Beirut

07-24-2007, 13:46

Use or lose.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/FirstAmendment.png

HoreTore

07-24-2007, 14:23

What did she do to get arrested? I can hardly imagine her being violent, which should be the only reason to arrest a protester... Other than the tyrannical reasons, of course.

Devastatin Dave

07-24-2007, 15:41

I bet she has :daisy:. That gal needs to freshen up.

Navaros

07-24-2007, 16:11

And the issue is?

The issue is she is a liar who promised to go away and not protest any more and she wrote a big long article stating so. In hindsight it appears the sole purpose of that article was to advertise for a property she bought and no longer wants. In any case that article by her has now been rendered to be full of nothing but big fat lies by Cindy Sheehan. She is still leading protests months after promising to go away and not lead protests or protest any more.

The second issue is that it seems she has never protested because she actually cares about what she is protesting about or her deceased son. Her son is just a footnote in order for her to get fame, money and the spotlight. There have been photos posted on this site before of her smiling like a pig in dung as police carried her away. Clearly her deceased son is the furthest thing from her mind during any of her protests.

Don Corleone

07-24-2007, 17:18

Cindy Sheehan is as free to express her opinion as anybody else. And point of fact, Navaros started this thread. Navaros is avowedly anti-Bush, anti-American foreign policy and decidedly anti-Iraq war. He didn't start the thread to say we all need to rally around the flag. He holds the same position she does, he's just affronted by her lack of integrity.

English assassin

07-24-2007, 17:58

InsaneApache

07-24-2007, 18:07

Don Corleone

07-24-2007, 19:08

Just a thought here. Has anyone posting ever lost a child? I have. I can tell you something, you never get over it. You just learn to live with it.

If one of my sons was sent off to war, a war sold on a lie, and he was killed, I doubt I would have nice warm fuzzy feelings for Blair/Shrub.

Compared to that, lying (if that's the word) about stopping protests really doesn't cut the mustard.

:2cents:

I wasn't posting on the validity of Cindy's positions. I was trying to highlight for Adrian and EA that this thread wasn't started as a "let's support Bush and bash war detractors" thread. I was attempting to play referee, if you will.

As for Cindy's 'grief', please allow me to begin by saying I hope from the bottom of my heart that I never know what it feels like to be her. You're absolutely right that she should have a great deal of lattitude. However, one of the consistent complaints against her, from her own family (including her son's father) is that she does not act out of grief or bereavement. She acts out of a desire for the limelight.

That being said, you raise an incredibly poignant issue, IA. The veracity of the claims made by Bush and Blair leading up to the war would be particularly poignant for a grieving parent. Losing your child to a just cause is hard enough. Losing your child to a lie would probably send most people past their breaking point.

Goofball

07-24-2007, 20:32

That being said, you raise an incredibly poignant issue, IA. The veracity of the claims made by Bush and Blair leading up to the war would be particularly poignant for a grieving parent. Losing your child to a just cause is hard enough. Losing your child to a lie would probably send most people past their breaking point.

Yep. It would probably send me to a clocktower.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-24-2007, 20:38

She has become a politician with a cause. She can no more eschew the limelight than a moth can ignore the candle. It is her right to protest, to trumpet her beliefs, to run for office and thereby oust the Speaker if she can manage it. I'd never vote for her, but I can't say that I would have any difficulty evaluating where she stands on the issues.....

Navaros, you really loathe things that strike you as hypocrisy, don't you?

KukriKhan

07-25-2007, 01:38

Well, freedom of speech extends to Navaros too, I wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise. If the things he posted above are true that she would certainly not be worth respecting. Can we have any links? I'm not sure how the whole protesting/not protesting/protesting again thing linked to buying a house. Or how we work out her motives for protesting. Is she taking payments for interviews or something?

I mean, sure, lying is bad, unless its eg to a child about santa really exisiting*, but in the overall scale of lies saying you are not going to protest and then protesting again seems pretty small time stuff. Its up to Nav what he gets angry about, but...

*note to any young children reading: he DOES exist, never you fear.

May 2007 news report (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/28/sheehan/index.html) where she quits the spotlight.

"I am going to take whatever I have left and go home," she wrote. "I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost."

(note: other reports of the time mention her desire to sell the property she'd bought in Crawford, Texas (near POTUS' ranch, from which she and her protest entourage camped, so as to not violate 'freedom of transit' laws on the road to POTUS' ranch, as they had in their original protest actions)

A wikipedia article for background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan)

Reuters article on the latest news (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2337983820070723) of her re-emergence into the public spotlight.

Several someones obviously had several serious conversations with her over the past 2 months. As far as I have found, she has yet to explain her reactivation from self-imposed public life retirement. Navaros apparently thinks her May retirement announcement was a feint, in favor of selling her Crawford property - and extends his skepticism of her motives to her entire message.

Csargo

07-25-2007, 01:44

Not surprising.

Xiahou

07-25-2007, 01:56

Interestingly, Sheehan was kicked off (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/91014/1295) the DailyKos for announcing that she intended to run against Pelosi. It's amusing that many of the same people who slammed those that dared to criticize this 'poor grieving woman' now are the first to try and shut her up when she stops carrying water for the Dems. :juggle2:

Crazed Rabbit

07-25-2007, 02:35

I find it amusing how much the same democrats who so opposed any impeachment of Clinton practically froth at the mouth for a Bush impeachment.

CR

AntiochusIII

07-25-2007, 03:04

I find it amusing how much the same democrats who so opposed any impeachment of Clinton practically froth at the mouth for a Bush impeachment.Erm, Sheehan was kicked out of the Dems' quarters because they don't wanna do it. And she was angry at them because they don't wanna do it.

So yeah. They're having their little revenge trip with lots and lots of balloon without helium but they aren't really expecting to do it.

Besides, and I hate to open up this old wound, getting a blowjob from an intern is much less of a crime even when he lied under oath than bringing an entire nation into a pointless war based on flimsy evidence and much eagerness.

KukriKhan

07-25-2007, 03:31

I'm with you, until this:

...even when he lied under oath...

IMHO, the act/crime is irrelevant; promising to tell the truth, then not doing that, is repulsive in any circumstance, using whatever icon of belief one might hold dear (the bible, Koran, Bagavadgita, testicles, whatever). Not doing it when one is the Chief Exec...

pricelessly, royally, singularly, wrong.

Crazed Rabbit

07-25-2007, 04:53

Erm, Sheehan was kicked out of the Dems' quarters because they don't wanna do it. And she was angry at them because they don't wanna do it.

So yeah. They're having their little revenge trip with lots and lots of balloon without helium but they aren't really expecting to do it.

Besides, and I hate to open up this old wound, getting a blowjob from an intern is much less of a crime even when he lied under oath than bringing an entire nation into a pointless war based on flimsy evidence and much eagerness.

Aw, come on. The ones out for blood just really hate Bush. Being too eager to go to war is not an impeachable offense, no matter how much you loathe Bush.

Erm, Sheehan was kicked out of the Dems' quarters because they don't wanna do it. And she was angry at them because they don't wanna do it.

Are you saying DailyKos is the Dem's quarters, or the actual Democrat offices in the Capitol? And I'll bet you the majority of the kossacks want to impeach - but they still support Pelosi because they support the party over principle.

CR

KafirChobee

07-25-2007, 05:08

I find it amusing how much the same democrats who so opposed any impeachment of Clinton practically froth at the mouth for a Bush impeachment.

CR
Amusing? You do grasp the difference? Bill lied about a blowjob, and was impeached. Dubya lied to get us in a war where 3,500 American boys and girls (so far) have died and 8-9X that wounded (and all that have been there +3 times suffer nightmares).

Suppose even a weak mind can grasp the difference, and allow that for the democracy to stay strong - Bush and Chenney really do need to go through an impeachment process. Other wise do we simply allow one Presidency to be scrutinized for 8 years, while we ignore another because it is our political party in charge of it all (all as in the 3 branches of our government)? And, to blame for it all.

Ah, wtf, Republicans can do no wrong - must be why so many of them are in jail or being investigated. Not that some Dems don't require some of that action as well. It's just that the GOPists seem more apt at it.

As for Cindy? Let me tell you, had one of my brothers or I died in Vietnam - my Mom would have made Cindy look like a whooosie. Mom would have gone after LBJ and Nixon as though she were a Valkrie; and Bush too, just on principle. Believe me, wrath hath no fury like a Mother that realizes her son's life was wasted on the whim of a political leader (especially one that managed to stay out of being a war's participant).

Cindy, may have acquired the Menchousen (sp) syndrom - but, blame the source for her grief - not her falling prey to fame (as some purport - to explain anyone not being patriotic enough to "stay the course").

:balloon2:

Odin

07-25-2007, 15:48

Amusing? You do grasp the difference? Bill lied about a blowjob, and was impeached.

While Cindy Sheehan is a fascinating subject, lets not mince words shall we? Billy was impeached for committing purgery to a federal grand jury. Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want, its still a pig.

Dubya lied to get us in a war where 3,500 American boys and girls (so far) have died and 8-9X that wounded (and all that have been there +3 times suffer nightmares).

Yet, no one has proven he infact lied about anything. Lots of people like to throw this out, for the weak minded, but here we are years later. No indictments, no litigation to speak off, and minimal talk of impeachement.

So far speculation of intent with doctored intelligence (wasnt the CIA chief a clinton appointed person? Oh never mind...) is all we have. I would love to see these clowns impeached, but no one has proved they lied about intelligence on Iraq. All that has been proved is the intelligence was wrong.

Other wise do we simply allow one Presidency to be scrutinized for 8 years, while we ignore another because it is our political party in charge of it all (all as in the 3 branches of our government)? And, to blame for it all.

Ahh U.S. politics. Iraq isnt going to do in Bush/Cheney, its the treason on plame, and the illegal wire taping that will. Democrats seem to worried about the pending election to persue those avenues of real potential impeachment. Iraq is far to easy a slam dunk.

Ah, wtf, Republicans can do no wrong - must be why so many of them are in jail or being investigated. Not that some Dems don't require some of that action as well. It's just that the GOPists seem more apt at it.

I dont know the dems arent to shabby either, the difference seems to be Dems like money, republicans like power. The later is far more frightening to our institutions then a shameless money grab.

Cindy, may have acquired the Menchousen (sp) syndrom - but, blame the source for her grief - not her falling prey to fame (as some purport - to explain anyone not being patriotic enough to "stay the course").

I think she is a smart woman, she has parlayed her grief into a real voice for change and one with some teeth attached. Power to her I hope she keeps going and runs for congress and wins. What better icon of the american spirit then a mother who lost a son in war, taking up the cause and gaining power to affect change?

Her only problem will be with such a noble pedigree which political party to run as.

Ronin

07-25-2007, 16:11

While Cindy Sheehan is a fascinating subject, lets not mince words shall we? Billy was impeached for committing purgery to a federal grand jury. Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want, its still a pig.

Yet, no one has proven he infact lied about anything. Lots of people like to throw this out, for the weak minded, but here we are years later. No indictments, no litigation to speak off, and minimal talk of impeachement.

I agree ...let´s not mince words....

Clinton committed perjury when he lied to a grand jury about a personal matter (I don´t care how you spin it the issue was not of public interest...it pertained to his marriage, hence it was a personal matter he, his wife and miss Lewinsky had deal with..nobody else) that no one else would accept being questioned about, this was only dragged out into public view because a politically motivated republican prosecutor hitman thought he could score some political brownie points with the electorate.....the fact that he even was questioned about such a matter is a joke in off itself.

...that´s not mincing words about that subject....

If the current Bush administration didn´t lie about the war in Iraq I must had been taking some pretty serious drugs around that time they were making their case for war....wmd´s, ties to al qaeda....they stopped just short of saying that Saddam was in the grassy knoll for Christ´s sake!
All these years latter haven´t all these things been proved as false???

As for there being no impeachment....well that´s a political decision....as while Bush and his cronies made up the lies the democrats went along with him when they voted for the war....they are in it up to their necks...so of course they´re not gonna start impeachment proceedings.....why drag the entire thing into the limelight once more?

Marshal Murat

07-25-2007, 16:34

All these years latter haven´t all these things been proved as false???

Something Like this? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html)

Or Maybe this will satisfy the curiosity (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000915.html)

WMD Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction)

There were nerve agents in Iraq, and if they weren't there before, they are.
Well, check WMD.

If Bush intended to go to war in Iraq regardless of intelligence, just for the oil, it seems the price has gone up.
If Bush went to war based on CIA intelligence, then he had every right to do so. You're either going to attack or be attacked, and Bush decided to take the belligerent route.

Odin

07-25-2007, 16:35

I agree ...let´s not mince words....

Clinton committed perjury when he lied to a grand jury about a personal matter (I don´t care how you spin it the issue was not of public interest...it pertained to his marriage, hence it was a personal matter he, his wife and miss Lewinsky had deal with..nobody else) that no one else would accept being questioned about, this was only dragged out into public view because a politically motivated republican prosecutor hitman thought he could score some political brownie points with the electorate.....the fact that he even was questioned about such a matter is a joke in off itself.

While all that might be true, it dosent change the fact he committed purgery to a federal grand jury. He chose to lie, being a memeber of the bar himself he understood the consequences. Personal matter or not, he could have simply declined to answer, he didnt make that choice.

...that´s not mincing words about that subject....

If the current Bush administration didn´t lie about the war in Iraq I must had been taking some pretty serious drugs around that time they were making their case for war....wmd´s, ties to al qaeda....they stopped just short of saying that Saddam was in the grassy knoll for Christ´s sake!
All these years latter haven´t all these things been proved as false???

Yes they have been proven false, but the part of them lieing dosent negate the fact they were "lieing" based on the CIA intelligence. Now if we were talking about there intent, thats another matter.

Lets assume for a minute they lied through thier teeth, doctored the intelligence to read what they wanted, and sold it to the UN, the public the world.

Why havent they been indicted yet? Why no international war crimes trial for them? And thats the rub, because the intelligence which they used to sell thier case they didnt create. Were they unethical in the way it was sold? Oh sure, but again I am waiting with baited breath on indictments from the congress, and world court on thier purgery.

Can you tell me when that will occur? What the stages are of the investigation? Its easy to say "they lied" but being involved in legal processes myself I can tell you from my expirence emotional proclomations never counter balance factual data.

Again, im open to it though, so where do the indictments stand exactly?

As for there being no impeachment....well that´s a political decision....as while Bush and his cronies made up the lies the democrats went along with him when they voted for the war....they are in it up to their necks...so of course they´re not gonna start impeachment proceedings.....why drag the entire thing into the limelight once more?

Because its criminal, if its true. Cant have it both ways, either there lieing criminals that broke US and international law, or they arent. It is black and white, and no matter how many dems or republicans or american voters went along for the ride its illegal (if they lied and produced false intelligence).

Of course if that intelligence was wrong and they made a mistake, now thats different isnt it? A huge oooppss for sure, but its one thing to say someone provided false documentation to break laws, as oppossed to saying someone used documentation to make a case for war that turned out to be wrong.

Ronin

07-25-2007, 17:33

Yes they have been proven false, but the part of them lieing dosent negate the fact they were "lieing" based on the CIA intelligence. Now if we were talking about there intent, thats another matter.

Lets assume for a minute they lied through thier teeth, doctored the intelligence to read what they wanted, and sold it to the UN, the public the world.

Why havent they been indicted yet? Why no international war crimes trial for them? And thats the rub, because the intelligence which they used to sell thier case they didnt create. Were they unethical in the way it was sold? Oh sure, but again I am waiting with baited breath on indictments from the congress, and world court on thier purgery.

Can you tell me when that will occur? What the stages are of the investigation? Its easy to say "they lied" but being involved in legal processes myself I can tell you from my expirence emotional proclomations never counter balance factual data.

Again, im open to it though, so where do the indictments stand exactly?

You need me to explain to you why the President of the only superpower and largest military and economic power in the world has not been accused of international war crimes? :inquisitive:

I have 2 options here....

a) I can assume that your question is honest and then I would have to explain the reasons to you like I would to a five year old...

or..

b) I can assume that you are being disingenuous in your question in order to try to one-up-me in our little exchange here ...because we both know fully that none of these people will ever sit in a court of law for what they did......

I´m pretty sure b is the winning ticket here...so I´ll just leave it at that.

Because its criminal, if its true. Cant have it both ways, either there lieing criminals that broke US and international law, or they arent. It is black and white, and no matter how many dems or republicans or american voters went along for the ride its illegal (if they lied and produced false intelligence).

are you telling me that you fully expect politicians to indite other politicians and arm their own political careers in the process? :laugh4: ....again....something tells me you´re not being completely honest in your argument

but just in case you are...tell me....would I be able to interest you in a nice bridge I have for sale? :clown: :juggle2:

Odin

07-25-2007, 17:51

a) I can assume that your question is honest and then I would have to explain the reasons to you like I would to a five year old...

Dont insult me, if in fact my question is honest your repsonse is degrading and not appreciated, and frankly beneath me.

b
) I can assume that you are being disingenuous in your question in order to try to one-up-me in our little exchange here ...because we both know fully that none of these people will ever sit in a court of law for what they did......

I´m pretty sure b is the winning ticket here...so I´ll just leave it at that.

Or you could answer the questions I asked, which you chose not to do, even if they might be considered rhetorical. The point is still valid, the claim "they lied" if true would merit a legal response in international court, as well as US federal court.

are you telling me that you fully expect politicians to indite other politicians and arm their own political careers in the process? :laugh4: ....again....something tells me you´re not being completely honest in your argument

I dont mind the smiley faces, but when someone questions the integrity of my commentary thats offensive. Of course I didnt "tell" you that I "fully expect" anything.

Dont let that get in the way of your postulating though.

but just in case you are...tell me....would I be able to interest you in a nice bridge I have for sale? :clown: :juggle2:

I find your tact, and your rational for taking the discussion to a somewhat personal tone to be indicative of your ability to back up your position. Clearly you cant, otherwise you wouldnt have attempt to discern my intent, you would have simply answered the questions.

The answers of which are non exsistent therefore it dosent support your notion. Perhaps other forum members would fall into this trap, but Im smarter then a five year old.

However I did spend a minute or two attempting to see your perspective before replying, the problem I had was I could not get my head fully lodged in my rectum to obtain the necessary thought process.

drone

07-25-2007, 18:39

Bush/Cheney will not get impeached for Iraq, for the simple reason that too many of the Democrats in Congress supported the war at the time. They bought the act, hook/line/sinker, and do not particularly want to show their constituents that they were gullible fools. My guess is that this is the main reason they are busting the administration's chops on the attorney firings. They probably do want an impeachment, just not on Iraq. And until they get the goods for something else, nothing is going to happen. It would be too damaging to their own careers.

If I'm not mistaken, this is pretty much the gist of Ronin's argument.

Don Corleone

07-25-2007, 18:52

I can actually make a case on 5 points about the Iraq war where the White House has in fact lied. None have to do with the claims they leveled that led to war:

1) We're doing everything we can to protect our troops in the field. Not true.
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld knowingly left troops unmanned and underequipped, to save money, which is laughable, given the cost of the war so far.

2) We're not interested in staying long term. Not true.
We've been there for 4 years now and most experts predict we'll be there for at least another 2, possibly more. The White House reminds me of a tenant that can't pay the rent... "just give us 2 more weeks/years".

3) The Iraqis will welcome us as heroes, like the Dutch and the French in WWII. Not true.
This one speaks for itself.

4) We know who exactly to go after in Iraq. We know how to control the aftermath.
Ditto.

5) And this one is what really pisses me of to no end: Those who serve can expect the best treatment should they be injured. Not F:daisy:ING true!!!!
There is Pentagon paper after Pentagon paper coming out that from Rumsfeld on down, the top brass has been obsessed with finding new and inventive ways to discredit fallen veterans from receiving full disability payments and medical care. Absolute and utter f:daisy:ing bull-excrement. They should be ashamed of themselves. And after that mess at Walter Reed, we, the fat dumb and happy lot here at home can't claim we didn't know any better and we should be pretty damn ashamed of ourselves too. There's no reason, no excuse, no word to be offered in defense as to why a guy who had his leg blown off isn't getting everything he needs to get back on the right road. And if he needs 40K a year in payment and another 40K a year in medical treatment, dammit, he should receive it. This more than anything else about this damn war (Iraq, that is) is what ticks me off. And it is also why I can't rule out that the administration is planning to invade Iran. The only reason they'd be trying to save money now is that they already know they're going to need it down the road.

As for the causes to war: Yes, the CIA issued reports certifying Powell's 5 reasons for war. But let's not kid ourselves here. Bush, Cheney and Rummy called Tenet and told him what they wanted and Tenet delivered it. The longer this goes on, and the more documents and coversations that have come to light, the more I realize the CIA made the intelligence fit the conclusion, not vice-versa.

Don Corleone

07-25-2007, 18:54

drone

07-25-2007, 19:46

Actually, I think Ronin was saying "You're the USA, who's got the ability to drag your president into the Hague". Not that they should, as far as I know, when we're dealing with just facts, the White House hasn't technically committed any war crimes, per se.
As part of his second post, yes. I was referring to these:

As for there being no impeachment....well that´s a political decision....as while Bush and his cronies made up the lies the democrats went along with him when they voted for the war....they are in it up to their necks...so of course they´re not gonna start impeachment proceedings.....why drag the entire thing into the limelight once more?
and followed up with:

are you telling me that you fully expect politicians to indite other politicians and arm their own political careers in the process? ....again....something tells me you´re not being completely honest in your argument
The Dems aren't going to impeach on Iraq because most of them are complicit. It's unlikely they could have stopped it anyway since they were the minority at the time, but they could have had the balls to vote against it. Most didn't, since they didn't want to appear soft. And that's going to haunt them for years.

As for war crimes trials in the Hague, that is probably the one thing that could unite Americans in support of Bush. As a nation, we just don't like foreigners trying our people.

Odin

07-25-2007, 20:00

[QUOTE]1) We're doing everything we can to protect our troops in the field. Not true.
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld knowingly left troops unmanned and underequipped, to save money, which is laughable, given the cost of the war so far.

2) We're not interested in staying long term. Not true.
We've been there for 4 years now and most experts predict we'll be there for at least another 2, possibly more. The White House reminds me of a tenant that can't pay the rent... "just give us 2 more weeks/years".

3) The Iraqis will welcome us as heroes, like the Dutch and the French in WWII. Not true.
This one speaks for itself.

4) We know who exactly to go after in Iraq. We know how to control the aftermath.
Ditto.

5) And this one is what really pisses me of to no end: Those who serve can expect the best treatment should they be injured. Not F:daisy:ING true!!!!
There is Pentagon paper after Pentagon paper coming out that from Rumsfeld on down, the top brass has been obsessed with finding new and inventive ways to discredit fallen veterans from receiving full disability payments and medical care. Absolute and utter f:daisy:ing bull-excrement. They should be ashamed of themselves. And after that mess at Walter Reed, we, the fat dumb and happy lot here at home can't claim we didn't know any better and we should be pretty damn ashamed of ourselves too. There's no reason, no excuse, no word to be offered in defense as to why a guy who had his leg blown off isn't getting everything he needs to get back on the right road. And if he needs 40K a year in payment and another 40K a year in medical treatment, dammit, he should receive it. This more than anything else about this damn war (Iraq, that is) is what ticks me off. And it is also why I can't rule out that the administration is planning to invade Iran. The only reason they'd be trying to save money now is that they already know they're going to need it down the road.

None of which pertain to the origins of the "lies" about going to war. These are all after the fact. That isnt to say they arent true, but the silly notion of falseified intelligence reports, by admin officials before the war has yet to be proven.

Again, if this were fact not just sexy banter to maintain a popular position, i'd concede. Are the items you listed impeachable offenses? Well perhaps but fabricated prewar intelligence does not resinate with any of the 5 examples you gave.

As for the causes to war: Yes, the CIA issued reports certifying Powell's 5 reasons for war. But let's not kid ourselves here. Bush, Cheney and Rummy called Tenet and told him what they wanted and Tenet delivered it.

Again a popular notion, but Tenet himself dosent seem to think that. Woodwards book plan of attack (http://www.amazon.com/Plan-Attack-Bob-Woodward/dp/0743255488/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7767585-7851817?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185389419&sr=8-1) nice read, gives a decent accounting.

Also from Tenet himself: "National estimates are publications where the intelligence community as a whole seeks to sum up what we know about a subject, what we don't know, what we suspect may be happening and where we differ on key issues.

This estimate asked if Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. We concluded that in some of these categories Iraq had weapons, and that in others where it did not have them, it was trying to develop them.

Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate.

They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it. "

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/05/tenet.transcript.ap/

So is he lieing Don? Or are you when you say
Bush, Cheney and Rummy called Tenet and told him what they wanted and Tenet delivered it. ?

The quote are his own words, his agency made the intelligence assesment on Iraq, he endorsed it, and he claims no one told him what to say.

So are you all privvy to thier dealings yourselfs?

Its okay to make it up as you go, you might even consider making mention of my spelling or my absurd position based on what was actually said to bolster a position that has no merit.

Now if we all sat here and said that the sales job of the intelligence was unethical and immorral I'd bite but people are taking positions on a legal process (impeechment) without any supporting documentation to thier claims.

Odin

07-25-2007, 20:15

@Navaros: My appologies for going on about the impeechment thing, i know the thread was on cindy sheehan. I dont think there is much else for me to say anyway, i've made my point.

Yes she said she was going away, but power is an attractive thing and she has real power. That power is the ability to project and channel real frustration about the war and bring it to a personal level.

While she may be a hypocrite I challenge you to find me someone who has not been at one time in thier life?

She's doing more good then bad with her public fight with the neo cons, however redundant it may seem given the consistant kicking of the dead horse we like to do.

I suspect that war related issues by way of mental health issues, and medical issues for soldiers and thier familes will be very prominate in the coming years, she could go a long way to helping that cause by lending her voice to the national discussion.

I hope she dosent go away.

Don Corleone

07-25-2007, 20:17

As far as I remember, there were 5 reasons for going to war in the first place:

-Iraq had retained its stockpiles of chemical/biological agents and was seeking a midrange missile to deliver them to Western Europe.

-Saddam was working on an advanced nuclear weapons program.

-Al Queda and the Iraqi government were in bed together and Al Queda was taking shelter in Baghdad.

-Saddam was brutalizing and mistreating his own people.

-The sanctions weren't working. If anything, they had enabled Saddam to get even richer off of black market trading.

We agree on this, yes?

Clearly, the CIA was off it's rocker with claims #2 and #3. With regards to #4, 3/4 of the nations of the world fit the bill here. And on #5, they were actually correct.

That leaves just #1. I would argue that if anything, the scant finds that we actually have come up with are worse than nothing at all. If NONE had been found, then theoretically, the vast stores could still be out there. But the trace elements we've been able to produce as evidence on #1 thus far point to an overestimation of biblical proportion.

So, we're left with 2 options. One, the president, who had already declared his animosity towards Iraq on numerous occassions encouraged the CIA to interpret the facts to support the conclusions he wanted. Or two, the world's most advanced intelligence agency got it so wrong, they weren't even in the right sport, let alone ballpark.

No, I don't have any evidence to back up my claim that the intelligence was rigged. Honestly, I actually find it a more palatable theory than the alternative. If the CIA did get the whole scenario so horrendously wrong, why do we continue to fund them? We should just disband them, they're worse than no intelligence at all.

InsaneApache

07-25-2007, 20:26

As a nation, we just don't like foreigners trying our people.

The irony in that statement is worthy of an award. :shame:

Not directed at you Drone btw. :yes:

PanzerJaeger

07-25-2007, 20:30

You expected the truth from a leftist, Nav? :dizzy2:

InsaneApache

07-25-2007, 20:32

'Truth' is subjective. The facts might be nice though.

Odin

07-25-2007, 20:34

[QUOTE]As far as I remember, there were 5 reasons for going to war in the first place:

-Iraq had retained its stockpiles of chemical/biological agents and was seeking a midrange missile to deliver them to Western Europe.

-Saddam was working on an advanced nuclear weapons program.

-Al Queda and the Iraqi government were in bed together and Al Queda was taking shelter in Baghdad.

-Saddam was brutalizing and mistreating his own people.

-The sanctions weren't working. If anything, they had enabled Saddam to get even richer off of black market trading.

We agree on this, yes?

yes

Clearly, the CIA was off it's rocker with claims #2 and #3. With regards to #4, 3/4 of the nations of the world fit the bill here. And on #5, they were actually correct.

That leaves just #1. I would argue that if anything, the scant finds that we actually have come up with are worse than nothing at all. If NONE had been found, then theoretically, the vast stores could still be out there. But the trace elements we've been able to produce as evidence on #1 thus far point to an overestimation of biblical proportion.

agreed

So, we're left with 2 options. One, the president, who had already declared his animosity towards Iraq on numerous occassions encouraged the CIA to interpret the facts to support the conclusions he wanted.

Yes this is the logical end, but when we start stating this as a fact we loose credability, particularly as a reason for impeechment. According to Tenet (the quote I posted) this isnt a fact at all, so again, who is lieing here?

We can suppose all we want, but successful litigation requires facts, not circumstantial conclusions. I just find it silly for forum members to pontificate on facts that are based soely on thier assumption, and expect me to swallow it.

Of course, maybe I come off as an adolescent? I've been fed enough BS in my life to know when someone is full of it Don. This isnt necessarily a pointed comment at you, but since we dont have pending litigation, an admission of guilt, or indictments i'll stick to the innoncent to proven guilty axiom.

Perhaps my failing is that I am an idealist? :laugh4:

Or two, the world's most advanced intelligence agency got it so wrong, they weren't even in the right sport, let alone ballpark.

I dont have time to dig it up, but the CIA used multiple international sources for the estimate. So yes, two, with the cavaet that everyone was out of the ballpark on it.

No, I don't have any evidence to back up my claim that the intelligence was rigged. Honestly, I actually find it a more palatable theory than the alternative. If the CIA did get the whole scenario so horrendously wrong, why do we continue to fund them? We should just disband them, they're worse than no intelligence at all.

You are one of my favorite posters here mainly because of the New England connection, but you do have enough humility to make a paragraph like this.

We fund them and use them because its an insturment of government that is necessary. As bad as they did on Iraq, one must hope that the positives out weigh the negatives in a historical context. In a current context most cant see past Iraq, they have been flooded, jaded and mind made up, no matter what vein of conversation you are in, there is no ability to see past the event as a whole, and therefore it flavors the dicussion of the micro components.

Don Corleone

07-25-2007, 20:48

Xiahou

07-25-2007, 23:54

Let me ask you... aren't any of the above statements starting to get to you?Not directed at me, but I'll answer anyway. I think the statements speak to the arrogance/incompetence of the administration - not sure what the actual mix is, but both clearly play a role.

I mean, I know people over there. And we've got AT&T making GI's wait in line for 3 hours in 120degree heat to queue for the phone and pay $5.00 a minute to talk to their loved ones. Do you think that's right? I'm about as pro-capitalista as they come and personally, I'm utterly disgusted.
I'm really curious what you think the alternative is. What should be happening in this instance in your mind?

Odin, good work in taking on the overheated rhetoric on pre-war intel. I certainly didn't have the time or interesting in hashing it all out again as you did. :bow:

InsaneApache

07-25-2007, 23:54

No exit strategy. There's the rub.

Don Corleone

07-26-2007, 03:43

I'm really curious what you think the alternative is. What should be happening in this instance in your mind?

Frankly, if I'm asking a guy to go spend 2 or 3 years in Iraq, I think I can afford to pay for his phonecalls home. They should receive an allotment of 30 minutes a week, if AT&T can't be asked to be patriotic enough to let them have the calls, you and I can be to pay for them.

Xiahou

07-26-2007, 05:38

Frankly, if I'm asking a guy to go spend 2 or 3 years in Iraq, I think I can afford to pay for his phonecalls home. They should receive an allotment of 30 minutes a week, if AT&T can't be asked to be patriotic enough to let them have the calls, you and I can be to pay for them.
According to AT&T (http://www.usa.att.com/military/action/services/detail?id=prepaidcard), phone calls from Iraq are $0.19/min with their calling cards, so it should be more like $5 for 30mins than for 1 minute. A quick google indicates that AT&T does work with various organizations to donate phone cards- and individuals can also purchase and donate cards at the above link. :bow:

Ice

07-26-2007, 05:46

*Reads about half the post which contain the same arguments I've heard over and over again*

Who cares, Nav? I mean really, the lady has no power at all. Anyone with have a brain can see that. Let her rant, rave, and threaten. Who really cares.

Papewaio

07-26-2007, 05:49

According to AT&T (http://www.usa.att.com/military/action/services/detail?id=prepaidcard), phone calls from Iraq are $0.19/min with their calling cards

And my company gets Aus to US at $0.04 Aus per minute... and no one in this company is dying on behalf of our supplier... so a 500% profit margin is patriotic?

Ronin

07-26-2007, 09:39

Odin

07-26-2007, 13:01

Honestly, Odin, I don't have an axe to grind with the administration over the leadup to Iraq, per se. As I said, I have a theory that the intelligence and the '5 reasons' were tailored to suit the goal, not vice-versa, but hey, you may be right, I may be wrong, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter....

My argument with the White House isn't so much getting into the Iraq War. I thought, and continue to think, it was a distraction from the real goal... cleaning up that whole mess on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And whoever let Al Queda escape Tora Bora should have been stripped of their commission.

My real problem is the HOW they're doing it, and the absolute contempt the White House expresses for its citizens, in the miltary as well as outside it....

Well on this vein we can agree, I dont like how they are going about it either. An invasion of afghanistan or Iraq was never necessary, we have far more powerful weapon systems that could have brought the regimes to bare. To be blunt, we have missle systems that can take out one small building in a bloc of high rises.

The ideology used for these invasions was regime change and deomcratization. The later is a based on the notion that democracy = freedom and that its a universal desire. No cultural factor was put into the equation.

I am not happy with the White house either, but one dosent throw the constitution out the window in a moment of passion and hope to attain thier desired outcome.

Bush wont be impeeched for the iraq war, its prosocution, the treatment of the soldiers, or the mismangement of the aftermath. All of which are allowed by law passed by congress and the constitution.

The fastest way to remove Bush and cheney would be the NSA phone tapping, and outing Plame, both of which are illegal, Iraq was not.

aren't any of the above statements starting to get to you?

No, its like hearing Led Zepplin stair way to heaven on the radio, I've heard it so many times its lost its appeal.

And we've got AT&T making GI's wait in line for 3 hours in 120degree heat to queue for the phone and pay $5.00 a minute to talk to their loved ones. Do you think that's right?

No I dont think its right, I think they should be out killing the enemy, and once that is over brought home immediately. The reality is Bush did this war on the cheap, and just like the Roman's he has outsourced most of the war effort.

To be blunt, there should be an immediate draft, and a war tax on all consumer goods to pay for this and reconquer that entire country and then dictate what will happen when its a mess as is, but when one looks at this outside the outrage one see's that war is being conducted within the pervue of the law (the at and t example anyway).

Odin

07-26-2007, 13:07

Odin, good work in taking on the overheated rhetoric on pre-war intel. I certainly didn't have the time or interesting in hashing it all out again as you did. :bow:

I didnt anticipate diving in really, but was compelled to do so not because I agree with Bush or his policies but find it distasteful to rewrite history to bolster a position that is already firmly based on subsequent facts.

Odin

07-26-2007, 13:11

No exit strategy. There's the rub.

:thumbsup:

Yes, the whole affair after the execution of combat has been a royal cluster bleep.

But for all those who really do hate Bush and Cheney, to get him impeeched you must follow the NSA survallience issue, and the outing of Blame. Both of which broke U.S. federal law.

The conduct of the war or the initiation of the war has broken no U.S. law. Its just an easier target to rant on, like I have said in the past, anyone can point at the sky and proclaim its blue.

Don Corleone

07-26-2007, 15:30

Who said anything about getting Bush & Cheney impeached? As I said, if they had come out and said "We've had it with Saddam and we're taking him out", I would have been okay with that. My problem is the mismanagement after the first year.

Xiahou, I know you think I'm having an overly emotional response to all of this but stop and think about what I'm saying. The administration has shown itself to be incredibly short-sighted and seriously wrong on it's ability to plan and execute long term strategic goals over there. Dick Cheney's endless cheerleading aside, things haven't gotten any better over there. Yes, they've had elections, but even the White House is getting exasperated at how poor the progress has been over there in terms of implementing the necessary constitutional reforms to get that bird off the ground.

And again, I'm going to make an emotional argument for the grunts over there. They've been there for 2 even three tours now. And don't forget, the majority of them are National Guardsmen, not regular infantry. And to hear that the Pentagon has an elaborate policy designed to hold down costs by minimizing disability level, and getting your arm blown off only qualifies you for 20% disability, sorry, I do get angry. We can do better, and frankly, of all the places to skimp, the way we treat the guy in the field is not the place to do it.

Odin

07-26-2007, 15:50

Who said anything about getting Bush & Cheney impeached?

Navaros in his first post quoted a story on Cindy Sheenhan being arrested at an impeechment rally.

And again, I'm going to make an emotional argument for the grunts over there. They've been there for 2 even three tours now. And don't forget, the majority of them are National Guardsmen, not regular infantry. And to hear that the Pentagon has an elaborate policy designed to hold down costs by minimizing disability level, and getting your arm blown off only qualifies you for 20% disability, sorry, I do get angry. We can do better, and frankly, of all the places to skimp, the way we treat the guy in the field is not the place to do it.

Okay Don, I didnt mean to get under your skin with my bantering on your commentary. I'm prepared to pay more in taxes to support the war, I have said from day 1, that a shift to a total war economy was necessary for the war on terror and the misc invasions that came along with it.

i'll add GI benefits to that, and would gladly pay far more in taxes to make sure they are covered for the long haul.