I'm skeptical - Rumsfeld says bombs from Iran?

[jGilder]

I see Drudge didn't bother to cite a source for the quotes. What are the odds he made them up, or "enhanced" them to suit his perspective?

I just watched Cindy being interviewed on both CNN and MSNBC and she denied making those statements about her son and Israel. Her actual comments regarding Israel and the Palestinians isn't what the Drudge report made them out to be... and she's NOT camping in a ditch either.

I have to say, she is awesome. She is very well informed on the issues and her perspective is right-on. When they trot out the grieving mothers who support the war it's obvious that they hardly have a clue on the facts and any details about what has gone down.

Hats off to a great American patriot -- Cindy Sheehan

• 

[The Weekenders]

I just watched Cindy being interviewed on both CNN and MSNBC and she denied making those statements about her son and Israel. Her actual comments regarding Israel and the Palestinians isn't what the Drudge report made them out to be... and she's NOT camping in a ditch either.

I have to say, she is awesome. She is very well informed on the issues and her perspective is right-on. When they trot out the grieving mothers who support the war it's obvious that they hardly have a clue on the facts and any details about what has gone down.

Hats off to a great American patriot -- Cindy Sheehan

• 

Yeah, all those other moms aren't smart like her.

Why don't you marry her? She's available.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/08 ... ehan1.html

[missy]

two points:
"protecting his country"

Yes, he, and anyone else that has served EVER is protecting their country. Even if they served during peace time. Even if they never saw any battle. Even if they were killed in field exercises here in the States.
By joining the military, they are saying that they are willing to do what the country asks of them. If the country asks them to help in a disaster, they do. If the country asks them to go to a foreign land and act as a peacekeeping force, they do. And if the country asks them to fight, they do. There willingness to serve "frees" up the rest of us to go about our daily lives.
A troop doesn't have to actually be in battle - whether you agree with the reason for the battle or not is not the point. But by their willingness to give up 2, 4, or however many years of their life (or their life entirely), yes, they are protecting us - even if at that particular time we don't have an actual "enemy" we need protection from. Remember, too, that there are a heck of a lot of service people that will never be in Iraq. They are protecting us in other ways and in other countries. If you don't think that's true, then bring every single troop home now - not just from Iraq, but from Germany and Japan and England and all the other areas we have bases. Put every ship in dock, including those that responded to help the tsunami victims. Close down all the hospitals and bases we have world wide.




As to the comment
"when they trot out the grieving mothers that support the war it's obvious they hardly have a clue about the facts....."
I hope you don't mean the mothers don't have a clue. Because - again - they can voice their grief in any way, shape or form they choose. If it gives them comfort to feel that they can support the war, who are you to deny them that?
I find that a very callous statement.

[The Weekenders]

I find it pompous, arrogant and hypocritical.

The language is pompous, the assumptions are arrogant and the hypocrisy follows. Why? Because Gilder wouldn't doff his beret for a grieving mother who hadn't changed her mind on Bush. If the act of losing a son or daughter confers the moral high ground, then one should be equally respectful of all of them, not just the ones you agree with. The rest are deluded but Cindy, mouthing the progressive formulas, is now a great American.

Take your hat off to all of 'em, I say. But understand they are speaking through pain, and this particular Mom seems to be going through some big mid-life changes and I am sure that losing a son was a catalyst.

[jGilder]

By joining the military, they are saying that they are willing to do what the country asks of them. If the country asks them to help in a disaster, they do. If the country asks them to go to a foreign land and act as a peacekeeping force, they do. And if the country asks them to fight, they do. There willingness to serve "frees" up the rest of us to go about our daily lives.

Does it mean their country can lie to them about why they're putting their lives on the line? Does it mean their country can fool them into believing something that isn't true in order to persuade them to possibly die for that supposed cause? I really don’t think our brave young men and women serving in the military would think it’s ok to be lied to with their lives at stake; that isn’t in the contract.

Yeah, all those other moms aren't smart like her.

As to the comment
"when they trot out the grieving mothers that support the war it's obvious they hardly have a clue about the facts....."
I hope you don't mean the mothers don't have a clue. Because - again - they can voice their grief in any way, shape or form they choose. If it gives them comfort to feel that they can support the war, who are you to deny them that?
I find that a very callous statement.

I’m not insulting these ladies; it’s an observation. My point is that people who support the war, like these other mothers, are usually uninformed about the facts and details regarding this issue. If you asked them questions about the history of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and in Iraq, the Downing Street Memo, etc., they couldn't answer with anything based on fact and wouldn’t even have any knowledge about most of it. I saw it today when they trotted them out. It doesn't mean they are any less mournful or don’t deserve our sympathy. But Cindy's answers were very well informed and her demeanor focus and resolve were remarkable when you consider all the attacks that are being directed at her. I was very impressed.

[s1m0n]

I just watched Cindy being interviewed on both CNN and MSNBC and she denied making those statements about her son and Israel. Her actual comments regarding Israel and the Palestinians isn't what the Drudge report made them out to be... and she's NOT camping in a ditch either.

That's twice in three days that Matt Drudge has out-and-out fabricated Cindy Sheehan material, based loosely on other remarks.

[jGilder]

I find it pompous, arrogant and hypocritical.

Let me understand this; are you saying that I'm pompous, arrogant and hypocritical, Enders?

[The Weekenders]

I find it pompous, arrogant and hypocritical.

Let me understand this; are you saying that I'm pompous, arrogant and hypocritical, Enders?

Just giving you a taste of the medicine you so easily dispense. You said those things about the US. The US is a country made up of individuals, all who share some degree of human flaws. No one is free from hypocrisy at times, some opine in a pompous fashion and some presume themselves to be better informed and smarter than others.

Welcome to the human race. And sure, I am sure I have been all three at times. And yes, I found your particular statements about Cindy Sheehan to be all three at that moment.

[jGilder]

I find it pompous, arrogant and hypocritical.

The language is pompous, the assumptions are arrogant and the hypocrisy follows. Why? Because Gilder wouldn't doff his beret for a grieving mother who hadn't changed her mind on Bush. If the act of losing a son or daughter confers the moral high ground, then one should be equally respectful of all of them, not just the ones you agree with. The rest are deluded but Cindy, mouthing the progressive formulas, is now a great American.

Your assertion that I am pompous, arrogant and hypocritical because I didn't take off my hat for those other mothers is one of the silliest things I've seen you say, Enders. Just because I admire Cindy Sheehan and said "hats off" to her doesn't mean I'm being "pompous, arrogant and hypocritical" in any way. Get a grip... jaysus.

I didn't disrespect the other mothers in any way. I did notice that the ones speaking out in support of the war were far less informed than Cindy. This in no way means I'm "pompous, arrogant and hypocritical" either. You need to brush up a bit on the meaning of these words before you use them, Enders. Unbelievable!

[The Weekenders]

With edit and delete button fully on call, I am going to remind you of some of your past statements here, particularly aimed at me, and thank you not to lecture me about civility online. For the third time, your STATEMENTS....

[s1m0n]

Damn. Let's blow this joint before the fight starts.

[jGilder]

Damn. Let's blow this joint before the fight starts.

I'm with you, Simon, Ender's errant pedantry bores me to tears.

[s1m0n]

Not me; errant pedantry is the finest kind.

Je suis Sieur Simon, le pedant-errant de la foret sauvage! It has kind of an Arthurian ring.

~~

Or do you mean erroneous pedantry?

[jGilder]

Not me; errant pedantry is the finest kind.

Je suis Sieur Simon, le pedant-errant de la foret sauvage! It has kind of an Arthurian ring.

~~

Or do you mean erroneous pedantry?

[TomB]

two points:
"protecting his country"

Yes, he, and anyone else that has served EVER is protecting their country. Even if they served during peace time. Even if they never saw any battle. Even if they were killed in field exercises here in the States.
By joining the military, they are saying that they are willing to do what the country asks of them. If the country asks them to help in a disaster, they do. If the country asks them to go to a foreign land and act as a peacekeeping force, they do. And if the country asks them to fight, they do. There willingness to serve "frees" up the rest of us to go about our daily lives.
A troop doesn't have to actually be in battle - whether you agree with the reason for the battle or not is not the point. But by their willingness to give up 2, 4, or however many years of their life (or their life entirely), yes, they are protecting us - even if at that particular time we don't have an actual "enemy" we need protection from. Remember, too, that there are a heck of a lot of service people that will never be in Iraq. They are protecting us in other ways and in other countries. If you don't think that's true, then bring every single troop home now - not just from Iraq, but from Germany and Japan and England and all the other areas we have bases. Put every ship in dock, including those that responded to help the tsunami victims. Close down all the hospitals and bases we have world wide.




As to the comment
"when they trot out the grieving mothers that support the war it's obvious they hardly have a clue about the facts....."
I hope you don't mean the mothers don't have a clue. Because - again - they can voice their grief in any way, shape or form they choose. If it gives them comfort to feel that they can support the war, who are you to deny them that?
I find that a very callous statement.

While I agree with much of what Missy writes, here, and having lived that life for 20 years, I would add that although folks in the service know what they may be getting into, they also join trusting that their government will not put them in harm's way without complete and full justification. Without that trust, which i seems to be eroding more and more each day, we weaken the military and thus the country and our very freedom.

All the Best, Tom

All