"Bush is a terrorist" - Cindy Sheehan

[jGilder]

Is George Bush a terrorist? According to Cindy he is, and so is his "Neo-con cabal."

Below is a link to her essay where she makes the statement, and below is an excerpt from an interview about it on CNN.

============================================

A Lie of Historic Proportions
by Cindy Sheehan

• "All of Casey’s commendations say that he was killed in the “GWOT” the Global War on Terrorism. I agree with most of GWOT, except that Casey was killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal.

============================================

I watched Anderson Cooper interview her about this yesterday. Here's how it went:

• COOPER: Cindy, I was reading some of the essays that you've been writing about the war over the last couple of months. In one you say the war is blatant genocide and you go on to say, and I quote, "Casey was killed in the global war of terrorism waged on the world and its own citizen by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world, George and his destructive Neo-con cabal." Do you really believe the president of the United States is the biggest terrorist in the world?
  
  SHEEHAN: I believe that he's responsible for the needless and senseless deaths of more people than any other organization right now. There was 3,000 people killed on September 11th, which was a tragic day. Our nation still mourned it. I still mourn for those people and their families. But tens of thousands of innocent people are dead in Iraq, Anderson, and there was no reason for the war. The war was based on lies and we know that now.
  
  COOPER: But when you say that the president, I mean you're essentially saying the president is a terrorist. I mean I think a lot of people would hear that and think what are you talking about?
  
  SHEEHAN: Well, you know, I've heard a lot of -- a lot of definitions of that and it's the definition they kill innocent people, you know, and his policies are responsible for killing innocent people and I say the organization is killing innocent people and it needs to stop.
  
  We know that he said there was weapons of mass destruction and we know he knows that there weren't. There was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam and we know he knows that there wasn't, so we need to stop the killing now and I'm here to confront him.
  
  COOPER: You said that it's blatant genocide. I mean you really think the United States is trying to eliminate an entire group of people, all Iraqis?
  
  SHEEHAN: There's an estimate 100,000 to 200,000 innocent Iraqis dead because of our occupation, either by bullets and bombs or by disease, malnutrition and he says we're doing it for the Iraqi people. How many do we have to kill before we convince them that what we're doing is right over there?

~~~

Note to Dale: This is based on facts, not speculation about what Cindy Sheehan is saying. This interview actually happened, and the questions raised here are valid and important in a democracy such as ours.

[s1m0n]

"Terrorist" is a statement of opinion, not fact. There is no agreed definition of the term. In most usages, it has no significance more profound than "We don't like that guy".

So yeah, in that sense Sheehan is bang on the money. She doesn't like George Bush.

I went looking a few years ago and found at least four different definitions in use among various US goverment agencies. The UN also tried to define terrorism, and came up with a number of wildly diverging takes, and then shelved the idea as unlikely to yield consensus.

[Unseen122]

I don't likie him but terroroist have to a tleast know what they are doing.

[jGilder]

"Terrorist" is a statement of opinion, not fact. There is no agreed definition of the term. In most usages, it has no significance more profound than "We don't like that guy".

So yeah, in that sense Sheehan is bang on the money. She doesn't like George Bush.

I went looking a few years ago and four at least four different definitions in use among various US goverment agencies. The UN also tried to define terrorism, and came up with a number of wildly diverging takes, and then shelved the idea as unlikely to yield consensus.

True, but isn't it amazing how Bush is waging a war on something that defys definition. I wonder how the soldiers in the trenches feel about risking their lives for the undefinable.

Wikipedia starts out the definition on their site with a disclaimer that it's too controversial of a term to accurately define. I think Chomsky came up with the best definition though.

• "the term 'terrorism' is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever 'we' happen to be."

[Scott McCallister]

"Terrorist" is a statement of opinion, not fact. There is no agreed definition of the term. In most usages, it has no significance more profound than "We don't like that guy".

So yeah, in that sense Sheehan is bang on the money. She doesn't like George Bush.

I went looking a few years ago and four at least four different definitions in use among various US goverment agencies. The UN also tried to define terrorism, and came up with a number of wildly diverging takes, and then shelved the idea as unlikely to yield consensus.

True, but isn't it amazing how Bush is waging a war on something that defys definition. I wonder how the soldiers in the trenches feel about risking their lives for the undefinable.

Wikipedia starts out the definition on their site with a disclaimer that it's too controversial of a term to accurately define. I think Chomsky came up with the best definition though.

• "the term 'terrorism' is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever 'we' happen to be."

It's funny... right after 911 when we deployed in Afghanistan, I remember having a conversation with my wife’s mom about what was to be done if anything in retaliation for the attacks on the US. She resolutely declared "Well, at least we're at war!" (if anything were only ever at most at war) I had to ask at war with who? She stopped mid step, stunned and agape. She was speechless in trying to come up with an answer. A rare condition for my Mother in Law

When Japan was defeated in WWII, an empire was defeated. With an emperor. A treaty was signed that spelled out how each country (country being a recognized political and physical body) would act going forward. Peace could finally be agreed upon.

This is different.

I mean really... A War on "terror"... are you kidding?! It is an idea, a concept, a thought, a political statement. We can all agree that it is bad and should end. But waging war on an idea is like sword fighting a shadow. The only practical "end" to terror is the cessation of that thought, weather it’s through education, equality, and tolerance, or the absolute eradication of a culture that propagates that thought.... Genocide.

I don't see Bush as one who is prepared for either means to that end.

His flagrant disregard for human life was apparent in his tenure as the Governor of Texas. Simply look at the number of Death Sentences carried out under his "leadership"

Through a series of improbabilities he was then put in charge of one of, if not the mightiest military force on the face of the planet.

He has used that position of power to incredibly destructive ends and is still no closer to defeating "terrorism" than we were on September 10, 2001

Meanwhile, the US economy continues to limp along as rising energy costs are now affecting other consumer goods' prices because of their reliance on fuel.

He is taking lives in an effort to promote his own political agenda.

Does that make him a terrorist? I can't say. But I do think it makes him the most dangerous man in the world today.

[peeplj]

Bush is a shallow man with shallow dreams. When you accuse him of trying to commit genocide, you are giving him way more credit than he's due: his dreams don't run that deep.

Remember Murphy's Razor: "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

--James

[Tyler]

Remember Murphy's Razor: "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

--James

Nice

Wikipedia starts out the definition on their site with a disclaimer that it's too controversial of a term to accurately define. I think Chomsky came up with the best definition though.


"the term 'terrorism' is used, standardly, to refer to the terrorism that they carry out against us, whoever 'we' happen to be."

By Chomsky's definition, it's easy to see why other nations might consider Bush to be a terrorist of extreme proportions, much the same way many Americans feel bout "Saddama bin Laden" (ok, that was a joke, anyone see that episode of Mad TV? The parody on Bush where he can't keep his "villans" straight. Laughed my ass off!).
But I also agree with James when he says that Bush may not even be smart enough to recognize his actions may have been wrong. Then again, he may not care...

[dwinterfield]

W is a bad person who uses his power to do evil, but I'd have a hard time calling him a "terrorist".

Allowing that there is no precise definition, I think the popular usage would be someone who projects violence on civilians in order to create public fear and uncertainty as a way to acheive some sort of policitical/social/cultural goal.

The "War on Terror" is a pretty meaningless concept and the term terrorist is becoming equally meaningless.

The problem I have with all this terminology is that it leads to confusion, sloopy thinking and bad decisions.

Here are some of the questions I have trouble reconciling about terrorism.

Were the Minutemen of the US Revolutionary War terrorists? They were civilians who ambushed/sniped British soldiers who were not engaged in battle. After 1 shot they blended back into the population?

Are Sunnis opposing the US in Iraq terrorists? They are civilians who ambush/car bomb US/British soldiers who were not engaged in battle. After 1 bomb they blend back into the population?

Barry Goldwater said "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

How would that play with the public today? Would people understand it to condone terrorism?

[jbarter]

So far 23 people have voted but on 7 said why.

[fiddleronvermouth]

W is a bad person who uses his power to do evil, but I'd have a hard time calling him a "terrorist".

Allowing that there is no precise definition, I think the popular usage would be someone who projects violence on civilians in order to create public fear and uncertainty as a way to acheive some sort of policitical/social/cultural goal.

Um, you mean like, oh, say, bombing the crap out of two entire Arabic countries, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths, mass confusion, displacement and starvation in order to overturn the leadership of these countries and implant a favored governing body?

Or just blowing yourself up on the subway?

If the word "terrorist" has any meaning at all, then yes, George Bush is a far more blatant and dangerous "terrorist" than any other violent leader on the planet. If you can't apply the word "terrorist" to Bush after all of his grinning, shiny-eyed speeches about firepower and "shock and awe", then you really can't apply it to anyone.

[TomB]

Yikes, someone voted for the "only enemies of the U.S. can be terrorists."

That, to me, is very scary thinking.

Tom

[Roger O'Keeffe]

Yikes, someone voted for the "only enemies of the U.S. can be terrorists."

That, to me, is very scary thinking.

Tom

Unfortunately, the poll button is not enabled for the wink smiley .

[TomB]

Yikes, someone voted for the "only enemies of the U.S. can be terrorists."

That, to me, is very scary thinking.

Tom

Unfortunately, the poll button is not enabled for the wink smiley .

Whew, (wipes brow). That's good news.

[anniemcu]

I think that a man who takes it upon himself to use lies and propaganda to incite his followers (can be read as inflamatorily as "zealots" or as innocently as "citizens") to destroy the lives of innocent people in another country out of vengeance, greed and/or power hunger, is nothing less than a terrorist. Bin Laden or Bush. And frankly, I think Bush's "reasons" are just as questionable as Bin Laden's... heck, maybe more so.

[s1m0n]

So far 23 people have voted but on 7 said why.

I rarely ever vote in online polls, but I will give my opinion.

I find the poll thing silly. so I ignore it.