Anti-war activist revives protest near Bush ranch
25 Nov 2005 20:43:00 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Patricia Wilson
CRAWFORD, Texas, Nov 25 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush’s hopes for a brief reprieve from the bitter Iraq war debate were dashed on Friday when peace activist Cindy Sheehan rallied her troops in protest near his central Texas ranch.
Bush is spending a six-day Thanksgiving break at “Prairie Chapel,” about 8 miles (13 km) from the tiny town of Crawford where Sheehan dedicated a memorial garden to her son Casey, a soldier who died in Iraq last year.
“We’re here to say that the killing has to stop and we’re not going away,” Sheehan told scores of supporters. “We want people to be held accountable and just because someone’s president of the United States, it doesn’t guarantee them immunity from accountability.”
Actually, I think that Cindy should be given a medal. She has stiffened resolve among the 90 percent of Americans who are not leftwing loonies. For that she is to be commended. The more that she is on the air, the happier I am. Bring it on.
I guess it looks bleak if you catch a photo of Sheehan in-between book signings. Perhaps if conservative bloggers could find a picture of her sitting on a toilet seat, they could harp on how “shocked” she looks. Or maybe they can shoot a photo of her going through security at an airport and comment on how “lonely” she seems, going through the metal detector all by herself… :loco:
Is that right? Do you know that in fact those pics are pics of her in-between book signings? Why is she sitting there in-between book signings? Why is there an in-between book signings if she is going to remain seated at the book signing table?
A don’t know the answer to any of the above questions. However, the pics depict, IMO, a pretty bleak picture of support for Ms. Sheehan.
Nice to see that you finally agree that the situation in Iraq only looks bleak when the media reports on the negatives and not on the positives.
You’re OK, MFGR, no matter what anyone else may say.
Is that right? Do you know that in fact those pics are pics of her in-between book signings? Why is she sitting there in-between book signings? Why is there an in-between book signings if she is going to remain seated at the book signing table?
A don’t know the answer to any of the above questions. However, the pics depict, IMO, a pretty bleak picture of support for Ms. Sheehan.[/quote]
According to Sheehan, she sold out that day. As to why anybody’s elderly mom would want to sit down, your guess is as good as mine. That she would let the photographers snap away while she’s sitting there taking a break could indicate that she’s nowhere near so “media savvy” as people have tried to characterize her as.
Nice to see that you finally agree that the situation in Iraq only looks bleak when the media reports on the negatives and not on the positives.
You’re OK, MFGR, no matter what anyone else may say.[/quote]
Well, I might agree with you if I felt that the entire story of Iraq was to be told in a few photographs taken on one day. However, there is a wide range of stuff I read about Iraq – the positive and negative. For quite a few months, I was getting regular reports via email directly from Iraq.
There are two interesting issues on the “bleak” aspects of Iraq – the commencement of the war and the conduct of the war. I consider it “bleak” that the Bush administration bamboozled the American public into a war that I thought was a load of crap from the start. I consider it “bleak” that they disregarded the sage advice of Powell (a.k.a., “Mr. Powell Doctrine”) about using overwhelming force, thus allowing the insurgency an opening into which to start. I consider it “bleak” that Bush and his cabinet have behaved in ways that have made us easier to dislike than we should be – through their conduct of the war they have increased distrust of America and created openings for the insurgency to get suppport they would otherwise have not had.
Strange. I was not bamboozled and you can go back to my posts regarding this from the very beginning. Strange that every one else was “bamboozled.” Also, I think Iraq is going very well and massive firepower (Powell) has never been proved and has often proved counterproductive to defeating an insurgency. MORE Cindy!!! I love this woman. I want to make her an honorary Republican for her efforts on behalf of the cause!!!
So you agree that this war has nothing to do with WMDs or the national security interests of the United States? And you’re in favor of it anyways? If not, perhaps you’re still among the “bamboozled still and just don’t know it” crowd.
Pretty sad, too, that so many folks were willing to give a president so much trust in the period after 9-11. I guess if they knew then what they know now, they would have kept a closer watch on Bush and his fellow crony scumbags.
By what metrics?
The insurgency didn’t start until we gave it an opportunity to bloom by going in with inadequate troops. We had enough men to “defeat” what was left of Saddam’s pitiful army. However we didn’t have enough to secure the cities and maintain the sort of stability that was necessary. War “on the cheap” has turned into a very expensive lesson.
If by “the cause,” you mean helping Bush’s pitiful approval rates continue their slide down into a place where no president has gone before, then I think we all owe her something. I think her goals are simpler – she’s against war.
More Cindy!!! More Howard Dean!!! More Teddy Kennedy!!! More John Kerry!!! More John Edwards!!! The more these people are on the air, the happier I am. I cannot get enough of them. Defeatist Dean on the TV. Magnificent. Let’s examine the two choices rather than just talk about Bush. This is heaven. After a disastrous three months we are being saved by Democrats who all they have to do to help is open their mouths and show their faces.
Okay, MFGR. First you were against the war, but when the war was fait accompli you were against how it was implemented? So so many criticisms so few concrete sensible solutions. You want more troops but you also want a pull our of the troops we do have? Magnificent. Talking out of the two sides of your mouth. YOu should be Hillary Clinton!
Now, Bush said Saddam was a threat and everyone including Democrats agreed. Bush said we have to act before Saddam BEFORE he becomes a threat (wmds) so we acted. I get that and discover or no discovery of wmds does not change that. I am happy we invaded Iraq and took Saddam down once and for all and now the next set of elections scheduled for Dec. 15 with very strong Sunni participation expected. Don’t you just love democracy?
Soon we will achieve our goal which is to cut our troop levels to 35K to 50K as was planned all along. Whether they are in some remote base in Iraq or in nearby Kuwait and Qatar I do not care as long as they are available for any balancing that may be needed in Iraq should things go sour. Magnificent. Imagine the 2008 view on this matter. You may have something to regret: a stable, peaceful Iraq? could be?
Did you expect me to go out to the desert and stand in front of a tank? I didn’t like the rationale for the war from then to now. Aside from that, I also don’t like how the Bush administration has made the war even worse through regular botchings – his armchair generals decided to overrule the only real general in their midst, and I don’t think their “war on the cheap” ideas have been borne out. Far from being the cakewalk the Bush adminstration made this war out to be, this has cost the lives of 2,100+ soldiers.
I’ve offered up many concrete ideas for how the U.S. might be able to improve the situation, both in Iraq and in the wider world. However, I guess you don’t bother to read any ideas that don’t involve bombs and tanks. A pity.
Where did I say that? The troops should never have been sent. ONce they were sent, we should have sent them in adequate numbers. Once we got quagmired by a second-rate tin-pot dictatorship into fighting an insurgency, we could have also done things to dry up the recruitment base and to get Iraqis to work.
Yes, a back-burnerable threat. We had the guy cowering and impotently waving his fists at our planes with not a chance in hell of doing anything to us.
I guess you’ve never heard of a group that actually was/is a threat. Fred Smith, meet al Qaeda … the very group that is laughing its ass of at how we got quagmired in Iraq, allowing OBL and his boys free rein to make new videos every week.
Yes, democracy is a nice thing. Democracy works on the public having facts by which their elected representatives may be evaluated. That process is disrupted when you have lying sacks of crap occupying the White House.
Seems like a dumb “goal”. If you want to cut the number of troops serving in our military, it would be better to demobilize them rather than to have them killed. However, that does explain pretty well how it was that the GOP was absolutely not interested in following up to ensure our troops had adequate body armor or armored humvees.
Here’s something to regret – 2,000 dead troops from a quagmire in Iraq that was not necessary when we could’ve had OBL taking a short drop and a sudden drop on pay-per-view. The celebrations over the subsequent decades of that day would dwarf anything the Brits muster for Guy Fawkes day.
I don’t see that al Qaeda has much to laugh about. So, OBL is now in the business of making videos? Before he was in the business of flying jet airplanes into sky scrapers. He can make all the videos he likes… so long as he stays down in whatever hole in the ground he is scared to come out of.
I don’t see that al Qaeda has much to laugh about. So, OBL is now in the business of making videos? Before he was in the business of flying jet airplanes into sky scrapers. He can make all the videos he likes… so long as he stays down in whatever hole in the ground he is scared to come out of.[/quote]
If he’d been in the business of flying jet airplanes into skyscrapers, he wouldn’t have lived as long as he has. His danger is in his ability to use videos, audiotapes, and even his continuing existence in the face of Bush’s “dead or alive” posturing to inspire others to fly jet airplanes into skyscrapers. I find it highly unfunny that the organization that helped inspire/organize guys who rammed airplanes full of our people into buildings full of our people has been backburnered in favor of the Iraqi quagmire.
Pat Tillman would be a good example of an American who thought the war in Iraq was BS while fighting in Afghanistan. (He did a tour in Iraq as well, so you can’t really call him ignorant on these points.)
Do you think the war in Afghanistan has gotten our full attention? Run a search via Google on “forgotten war” and “Afghanistan” and check out what comes up.
Too bad that Bush let OBL slip right through from Tora Bora … I guess he had more important things to do, like read books about little goats or something. :loco:
