I'm skeptical - Rumsfeld says bombs from Iran?

Blackwood · Post by **Blackwood** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 3:46 pm

So Jack I take it the new poster named "Old f*rt" is trying to look like you since he is using an image of you.....i hope it's not a deviant sexual fantasy of his...or maybe he's just juvenile and can't make his points through a reasonable discussion...

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 3:51 pm

Blackwood wrote:or maybe he's just juvenile and can't make his points through a reasonable discussion...

Bingo!

missy · Post by **missy** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:29 pm

jGilder - my post wasn't directed at you, but at all of us "westerners" and just my "ramblings out loud". Sorry that you took offense, none was intended at all.

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:02 pm

missy wrote:jGilder - my post wasn't directed at you, but at all of us "westerners" and just my "ramblings out loud". Sorry that you took offense, none was intended at all.

Sorry if I appeared to take offense... I was just responding.

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:40 pm

texasbagpiper wrote:I will not wave, but look away and shake my head in shame, for the woman is a disgrace to her son and her country(but that is another subject)

If you feel shame for what Cindy Sheehan is doing, that would indicate that you know the answer to the question she wants to ask Bush. Perhaps you could share with us your reason for feeling shame about her vigil and explain what exactly US soldiers are fighting and dying for in Iraq. Please include resouces that your opinions are based on in the way of evidence and fact that exists in the public record.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:38 pm

jGilder wrote:
texasbagpiper wrote:I will not wave, but look away and shake my head in shame, for the woman is a disgrace to her son and her country(but that is another subject)
If you feel shame for what Cindy Sheehan is doing, that would indicate that you know the answer to the question she wants to ask Bush. Perhaps you could share with us your reason for feeling shame about her vigil and explain what exactly US soldiers are fighting and dying for in Iraq. Please include resouces that your opinions are based on in the way of evidence and fact that exists in the public record.

There is nothing Bush can say. He's in a lose-lose situation and enemies of him, like Gilder, love it. If he doesn't meet with her AGAIN, he's a bad guy. If he does meet with her, nothing he says or does will matter anyway because he won't meet her demands so he loses.

BTW, Gilder, she's from Vacaville, not Livermore. But I keep forgetting, it seems like you don't know your geography east of Yerba Buena....

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:16 pm

The Weekenders wrote:There is nothing Bush can say. He's in a lose-lose situation and enemies of him, like Gilder, love it. If he doesn't meet with her AGAIN, he's a bad guy. If he does meet with her, nothing he says or does will matter anyway because he won't meet her demands so he loses.

He's in a lose-lose situation because he lied to get us into a war that has nothing to do with the reasons he gave us. I don't "love it" -- I hate it. Too many innocent people have suffered or died because of the Bush Administration's deceit. He'll never face up to it, even when a mourning mother is camped out at his gate.

The Weekenders wrote:BTW, Gilder, she's from Vacaville, not Livermore. But I keep forgetting, it seems like you don't know your geography east of Yerba Buena....

True, I avoid venturing into territories where known Republicans dwell.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:06 pm

Yeah, the mourning mother who met him in Ft. Lewis in June 04 and was quoted in her hometown paper as saying that she now felt that the President believed in freedom for the Iraqi people and so forth. A year and a month later, she arrives on an "Impeachment Tour" bus in Texas looking for another 15 minutes of fame, while her family is asking her to come home. Even the mainstream media is reporting these things.

I can't wait for the book. Well, actually, I can. Even in the most "just" war, one that is understood to be necessary, there are as many kinds of personal grief as there are casualties. This demonstration, to me, is a dog and pony show, but easy to report – way easier than Baghdad.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:46 pm

The Weekenders wrote:Yeah, the mourning mother who met him in Ft. Lewis in June 04 and was quoted in her hometown paper as saying that she now felt that the President believed in freedom for the Iraqi people and so forth.

Yup. People are changing their minds; that's the point.

They come to their senses and realize they've been conned.

Cindy Sheehan is dangerous to the republicans because she represents a lost voter--someone who used to be in favour of Bush's war and has now changed her mind.

If she wasn't once in favour of the war--if she'd been against it all the way--this whole thing wouldn't be a worry to the whitehouse.

But it is. The polling numbers are heading into "awful" territory for the War, and it's only because former supporters--or those voters who trust the president by reflex until that trust is proven to be misplaced--are starting to express their doubt.

They gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt, and a substantial proportion of the US population are starting to get the uncomfortable feeling that the president doesn't know what he's doing and wasn't worthy of that trust.

That's why Sheehan's dangerous, and why her previous meeting with the president doesn't refute her message.

dwinterfield · Post by **dwinterfield** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:58 am

When the people of Iraq turned out in large numbers to vote or when Libya agreed to stop its nuke program (btw, good Bolton story in that event) or when the US casualty numbers dipped for a while, I briefly wonder if the neo-cons and Bush could be right.

This morning I'm wondering if the folks who support Bush and the war as currently implemented have any doubts. Current polls suggest that about 40% of he US public support Bush's Iraq policy today. If you're in that group, is there anything that would cause you change you mind?

I ask because of Simon's comment about Cindy Sheehan and people changing their minds. My guess is that somewhere around 40% of the public will support the war no matter what and that this is one side of our polarized society. On the other side is a group of 20% that will oppose any Bush war no matter what to which you can 20% who will oppore the Iraq war no matter what. I'm in this group as I suported Afganistan and oppose Iraq.

Can support for Bush's war in Iraq get any lower? or higher for that matter?

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:36 am

It can get lower. Hard to imagine higher, except on the day troops start coming home.

I don't think Cindy Sheehan is that big of a deal, compared to all the Bush detractors. I mean, think about it. There were already Bush-Mass Murderer bumper stickers in 2000. A whole radio network was launched to derail his re-election. He is a chimp in the Euro papers, and US caracatures are getting pretty close to adding the fur. He is the object of scorn and ridicule across the country and around the world. And, like I said, the universal grieving mother of a dead soldier, whose grief is compromised by being whored by the media and having had the previous meeting, is just not that strong of an addition.

The media doesn't seem to have much going, so they are playing Sheehan a lot.

I am just SO surprised that major papers aren't running more with Sen. Weldon's accusations about DOD being ordered by White House lawyers not to share info with FBI about Atta a full year before the attacks. This story broke the same day Gilder was accusing Bush of "clearly" looking the other way with advance info. He was right except for using the name Clinton. It also sheds light on Sandy Bergler and those documents right before 9/11 testimony. But damage control by the left is being reported some.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:42 am

The Weekenders wrote:I don't think Cindy Sheehan is that big of a deal, compared to all the Bush detractors.

Yeah, the people who hated bush then hate him now as much as ever. Who cares? They never voted for him anyway, so nothing's changed.

The people Sheehan represents *did* vote for Bush; that's why their loss hurts. It's a sign that things have changed.

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:52 am

The Weekenders wrote:I am just SO surprised that major papers aren't running more with Sen. Weldon's accusations about DOD being ordered by White House lawyers not to share info with FBI about Atta a full year before the attacks. This story broke the same day Gilder was accusing Bush of "clearly" looking the other way with advance info.

There was so much evidence left out of the 9-11 commission hearings that any conclusion is seriously flawed. It was like diagnosing why your car broke down without ever looking under the hood.

missy · Post by **missy** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:23 pm

s1m0n wrote: The people Sheehan represents *did* vote for Bush; that's why their loss hurts. It's a sign that things have changed.

Just a question -
who are the people Mrs. Sheehand is representing? If you mean those with son's in the service, than I'm not one of them, because I didn't vote for Mr. Bush.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:35 pm

missy wrote: who are the people Mrs. Sheehand is representing?

I don't mean "represent" in any elected sense; perhaps "embody" is a better choice.

I'm talking about swing or centrist voters who reflexively trust the C in C and therefore need a really good reason not to support a sitting president during wartime.