Rosa Parks Rocks

81 replies [Last post]
rightway's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

She was 42 when she sat on the bus.  A U.S. Serviceman who was
black was killed a few days Rosa Parks made her stand...he was killed
by the police for the same thing rosa Parks did.  The courage
exhibited here is scary...and commands all of the respect in the world.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

rightway wrote:She was 42 when she sat on the bus.  A U.S. Serviceman who was black was killed a few days Rosa Parks made her stand...he was killed by the police for the same thing rosa Parks did.  The courage exhibited here is scary...and commands all of the respect in the world.  
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

I also respect that she stood up, or rather sat down, for herself and did it with quit dignity that commanded we pay attention to her  and her cause..  She never turned herself into a dog an pony show, unlike Cindy Sheehan.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

babbling looney wrote: She never turned herself into a dog an pony show, unlike Cindy Sheehan.
 
Not to hijack the tread, Rise of the Vulcans, by James Mann gives lots of insight into why things are as they are. And does so without throwing political fire bombs. Anyone who wants to understand why we're in Iraq needs to read this book.
Back to Rosa Parks, where would we be without her? That's a scary thought.

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

TJC give me the brief.. Was the book about America the deliver of peace or America the evil empire. Either answer explains what political side of the stick the author is on..
 
Moveon.org (terrorists) or 51% Americans who voted a certain party into office.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

executivejock wrote:
TJC give me the brief.. Was the book about America the deliver of peace or America the evil empire. Either answer explains what political side of the stick the author is on..

neither, at least how I read it. It's a chronology of the political lives of the president's closest advisors. Shows what their beliefs are and how they came to power. Mann works or worked for the NY times, so expected a big time bend to the left. Not there. None the less, the book is disturbing in that it shows how this group, with the exception of Powell, believes now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy(read democracy). Sound familiar? If that's what you mean by evil empire then that's in there.
 
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy
And so.......?
What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.
But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.
Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     
Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Most of you while well meaning have no idea what your talking about, in a way similar to how some have charactarized my posts on stock analysts.

Rosa Parks was a smart and well trained activist. Do you really beleave that the this group, which was the forerunner of the SCLC, wasn't directing this activity from its outset. The Montgomery Bus Strike was engineered by highly educated activists like Bayard Rustin who was dogged by the FBI for being a homosexual. Remember Dr. King held a PhD from Boston University. The civil rights movement was not just some ad hoc arrangement by simple and concerned citizens. Rosa Parks was a radical.

What you should understand is her acts were orchastrated in a way to show the world that in this era that common decency was a radical notion. Conservatives of the time hated her and the SCLC not simply because she was Black. They felt that racism would just get better over time and no one rock the boat. Before the Repubs out there go crazy I mean conservative in the strict sense.

The problem with Cindy Sheehan isn't that she is wrong. What's wrong with a women freaking out after her son dies? It disturbs me that people actually hate this simple minded grieving mother. Her problem is she is obnoxious. Did she think the country wouldn't notice that she already had met with the President when she went around demanding a meeting with him. What kind of message does that send, "oh meet with me one more time so I can get it right."

If the Anti War Movement were smart enough to study movements, like the civil and womens rights movements, they would have realized that the most successful activists are groomed and educated to understand the role they are in. Remember Ghandi was a lawyer and the Gipper was an actor.

Best,
Sonny Clips

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

What's wrong with a women freaking out after her son dies?
Absolutely nothing wrong. Any mother or father would be destroyed by the death of a child.  Grief is a natural and neccesary process.  So is sex, but I don't want to see a full frontal sex show in public, just as I don't want to see Cindy Sheehan gnashing her teeth, wailing, pouring ashes on her head (and oh by the way smirking at the camera at the same time).  http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/antiwar-protest-ends-with-m ass-arrest/2005/09/27/1127804477879.html    She is having the time of her life in this photo op evidently.  Too bad the time of her life is predicated on the death of her son.
Grief like sex and other moist displays of affection should be done privately.   I have more respect for the likewise grieving parents, children and spouses of the other fallen soldiers who have sucked up the pain and have gone on with their lives.  And yes some of them are also protesting the war as is their perogitve, but with dignity and grace. 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Just another random post on this topic.  I am probably old enough to be the parent of many of you (I am guessing) and have had the experience of living in the segregated South for a while as a child. 
My earliest memory of being aware of segregation was when we moved from Los Angeles to some place in Mississipi. My brother and I were about  5 and 6yrs old and having just arrived from a long trip in the backseat of the car, (with ...gasp!!.... no seat belts and we survived to tell the tale), we were thirsty.  My parents pulled up to a public park, very nice with shady trees and lawns.  So we got out and ran up to a drinking fountain.  Just as we were ready to drink some strange lady came up and was upset and said "Don't drink from that water it is the colored fountain!!"   So needless to say we were scared and confused and drank out of the "other" fountain.    Later we snuck back and turned on the water and were very dissappointed that it wasn't colored at all but was clear water just like the other fountain.  We were hoping for blue or green or something.    My parents had to clue us in on the "rules".   It made no sense to us at all.  Fortunately we moved away and went back to California within a year.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Good story about your childhood Looney. A good narative always has a special character to it. California had its own issues in the civil rights era didn't it wouldn't you say? There still dealing with it in a way that a bunch of places in the south, like Atlanta, have been able to put to rest.

As far as grief goes. I had a buddy that laughed at the funeral home after his father died. His sister screamed at him for his insensitivity and stomped off. My question is this. Of the two who was grieving in the appropriate way? I'd probably say that both of them were... hell it was there old man. I know when my father died when I was a teen I cried half the time and laughed like a loon for the other half. I can't imagine how stupid I would act if I had a child die. My anger might drive me to some ridiculous acts.

Why don't we admire those who grieve with dignity without denegrating those who don't. If the media deems to turn it into grief porn we can always change the channel, no?

Best,
Sonny

rightway's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Orchestrated or not...she could have died for doing what she did.  None of us would do that for such a cause.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Come on, Sonny, Rightway said nothing incorrect in his post. Parks WAS a member of the NAACP and she had been active prior to her arrest in 1955. In fact, she had refused to give up her seat several times in the years prior to that day, but afaik, she wasn't arrested. That hardly makes her a “radical” or trained activist. She wasn’t the complete babe in the woods as the legend suggest, either.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
There's nothing to suggest that her arrest was staged or managed (as are today’s made-for-TV-press-sheets-in-advance-come-watch-us-get-aresst ed-at-2pm (and bailed out by 2:15) activist events) that the resulting boycott (which started as a single day and grew from there) was anything other than spontaneous. Now, the successful Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins were another matter.
As far as Cindy Sheehan goes, I share your concern that some people hate her, poor addle-minded and dishonest, but ultimately grieving mother that she is. OTOH, I share a deep distaste that many have with her idiotic statements (“end the military occupation of New Orleans”) her dishonesty (her son volunteered to serve and disagreed completely with her about US foreign policy) and her general stupidity (leaving Iraq now, no matter what you think of how we got there, or how we’re conducting the war, would create a bloodbath, embolden terrorists around the world, weaken those who risked everything, their lives included, to support us and grant Al Qaeda a safe haven they otherwise would never have).

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

I agree with the substance of what Rightway said. I admire her greatly, even if she did sue Outkast. I never meant to say the arrest was staged but it definitely was managed to the extent that she was briefed on the way she should treat the arrest and statements she would make afterwards. This was done by Bayard Rustin, the activist of the organization, who was a tough old school organizer in the Alinsky mold.

Don't you admire that they built the myth in that it shows distinctly how brilliant these American Heros were? Given the importance of a mythical aura. This was the reason why I mentioned Ghandi and Reagan given that they both cultivated a personal myth that propeled their cause. Ghandi becoming a Janist acetic revered for being a religious figure not a lawyer and Reagan the straitshooting rancher instead of a movie and tv personality educated in economics.

Rightway, of course she could have been killed. There was the chance that she could have been "disappeered" never even having had an opportunity to have been martyred for her cause. From my perspective she was a radical, the difference between you and I is that I mean this as a complement.

My purpose was only to introduce a different perspective from that popularly held. One that I find wholely facsinating given that the SCLC was made up of people of such vastly different experience that they should operate more deliberately like a brilliant startup than with the "school board" earnestness that all to often is associated with them.

Mike Butler are you familiar with the Republican Senator from Illinois Everett Dirksen and the courageous work he did in favor of civil rights? If your not you should check him out.

Best,
Sonny

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Mike Butler are you familiar with the Republican Senator from Illinois Everett Dirksen and the courageous work he did in favor of civil rights? If your not you should check him out.
Of course. He was the Senate Minority Leader and led a higher percentage of GOP Senators to support civil rights legislation than Democrat Senators did.
 
He's also the source of one of my favorite Washington DC quotes; "A few billion here, a few billion there, next thing you know you're talking about real money.".

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

There is another story I heard about him and Gerald Ford. They were on the phone one day and Ford asked Dirksen what he heard in the background. Dirksen says "oh that was a horn, I'm on my car phone." Now this is the late sixties early seventies so a phone in the car is a big deal as you know. Ford always having a keep up with the Joneses attitude toward Dirksen get his own phone in his car.

One day they are both talking when Ford metions that he too is on a car phone. Dirksen says, "hey thats great could you hold on for a moment." Not one to be out done he comes back on with Ford and says, "sorry I just recieved a call on my other line."

Best,
Sonny

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

babbling looney wrote:
now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy
And so.......?
What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.
But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.
Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     
Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

 
   I wonder what you would do if your child was to die. You act like Sheehnan is doing all this for attention. I am sure there were people like you back in Rosa Parks day, that were appauled at the fact someone was actually thinking for themselves. However it is important to have people in our society that dont just blindly follow, but make conclusions on their own and speak out if they are not comfortable. I think you have probably been wathcing too much fox news.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Nice  You assume that I am a racist because I am disgusted by the over the top public chest beating and wailing by Cindy Sheehan who I do believe is more concerned about publicity than actually honoring and PRIVATELY grieving for her son.   I'm sure she does grieve for the death of her soldier son, however using him and allowing politically motivated people to hoist him on a stick and wave him around for their own purposes is just sick.  You do notice that they pretty much have dropped her like a hot rock when she no longer suited their purposes.
What would I do if my child volunteered for a dangerous occupation and was killed? I don't know,but I'm sure I wouldn't hire a publicity consultant and try to make myself the center of attention.  Yes, I do think she is doing this for attention.  She has been a frustrated protest warrior for many years and this was a perfect opportunity for her to grab the brass ring.
If you want to believe otherwise, fine, but here is the official statement of the people who know Cindy Sheehan best... the father of Casey (remember him?) and his family.
“The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently, with prayer and respect.”
You make some broad assumptions on my television veiwing habits as well.
I am going to assume that you are an idiot.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

babbling looney wrote:
now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy
And so.......?
What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.
But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.
Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     
Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.

BL, the Army and Marines are falling way short of their recruiting goals, what's stopping you from fighting for what you believe in? Too old, not in good health, how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?
My daughter, just like Casey Sheehan, can make her own decisions and I will have to abide by those decisions.   As a grown up, adult woman, she is not mine to "offer up".
And this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with political issues such as the war in Iraq.  I have never mentioned Iraq or anything to do with the military. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem along with cruiser.  (I hope you listen to your clients better than you are able to read commentary)  What I object to is the dragging into public and politicising what should be a private process of grief.  Cindy Sheehan, dancing on the corpse of her dead son for her own self agrandizement is what I find disgusting.   There are constructive ways to protest and get your views out there. This is how we got Megans Law, this is how MADD was formed. Parents turning their grief into positive results.  I just find her way unseemly and sickening and especially find the parasites that cling to her for their own purposes to be disgusting human beings.
PS.  How about two nephews (who both were in Afganistan and Iraq as Army Rangers and thankfully home safe now), two of my uncles(career Air Force)?  I don't think the military is taking middle aged women. Although maybe they should since there is nothing more dangerous than a menopausal stock broker.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

I think that you have not lost anyone to an untimely death. I believe that TJC45 and Cruiser are reacting to something that is inconsistent in your values. It is very ignoble the way the right have characterized what they deem apropriate grieving and themselves have become parasites on the Sheehan Bandwagon.

They have done this as a means of coloring the whole anti-iraq, I call it anti-iraq because most of the protestors I have picketed with have made the distinction, as being frivolous peaceniks. When I was in Graduate school a year or so ago I was active with the interfaith network in Dekalb, Il. One of the women that was instrumental in organizing Rosemarie Slavenas had a son who was a reservist and a helicopter pilot. You can read her and her son Brian's story at the

The New Yorker

The story was written by Calvin Trillin and it is very moving.

It's about a women who protested the war and a son who while against the Iraq war went and was killed when he was called up. I drink beers with the guy and shared mutual friends who ran the gamut of political views. I wonder why the Right Wing Media never latched on to her story. Why they focused so much on Sheehan who is so obviously unprepared for her role.

Slavenas a retired professor holds a PhD and is very gifted in the area of protest organizing. I submit that the right wing media has a commercial interest in watching this Sheenhan who is so obviously a pathetic bundle of nerves implode. We have a long history of this type of voyeurism look at, Judy Garland, Betty Ford, Kitty Dukakis and Cortney Love we are glued to their self destruction we watch it as entertainment whether we acknowledge our shadenfreude or we merely continue to follow the story while all the time claiming to be appalled.

Slavenas would have been the war protest movements Rosa Parks but no outlets other than the New Yorker seems to be interested in viewing contrary acts as anything more than a Tijuana Donkey Show. All titilation and no substance. Make sure you read the New Yorker story before you throw around any of the cliche's about being a liberal dumbass. I ask this because even if you do not agree with me I would hope you would take my perspective seriously and contemplate the opposing views.

Best,
Sonny Clips

PS if you don't believe my having been a member of the Dekalb Interfaith Network search its archive database on yahoo groups.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

babbling looney wrote:
how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?
My daughter, just like Casey Sheehan, can make her own decisions and I will have to abide by those decisions.   As a grown up, adult woman, she is not mine to "offer up".
And this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with political issues such as the war in Iraq.  I have never mentioned Iraq or anything to do with the military. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem along with cruiser.  (I hope you listen to your clients better than you are able to read commentary)  What I object to is the dragging into public and politicising what should be a private process of grief.  Cindy Sheehan, dancing on the corpse of her dead son for her own self agrandizement is what I find disgusting.   There are constructive ways to protest and get your views out there. This is how we got Megans Law, this is how MADD was formed. Parents turning their grief into positive results.  I just find her way unseemly and sickening and especially find the parasites that cling to her for their own purposes to be disgusting human beings.
PS.  How about two nephews (who both were in Afganistan and Iraq as Army Rangers and thankfully home safe now), two of my uncles(career Air Force)?  I don't think the military is taking middle aged women. Although maybe they should since there is nothing more dangerous than a menopausal stock broker.

Maybe we need some menopausal troops to get the job done.
Actually , I was speaking to your view on our foriegn policy.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

SonnyClips wrote:I think that you have not lost anyone to an untimely death. I believe that TJC45 and Cruiser are reacting to something that is inconsistent in your values. It is very ignoble the way the right have characterized what they deem apropriate grieving and themselves have become parasites on the Sheehan Bandwagon.
You don't know that.  I lost my fiance in the Vietnam War. (Told you I was old.) I also lost many close friends and have those that are permanently disabled both physically and mentally.  The shabby way that they were treated when they returned from war I attribute directly to the media and the protesters that they encouraged in undermining the War. Unlike 100% of the people in the military today, my fiance and friends were NOT volunteers. Whether I thought the Vietnam War was right or wrong at that time is immaterial.
And it IS ignoble the way that the media both right and left have become parasites on what should have been a dignified private grief.  My beef with Cindy Sheehan is that she has encouraged the parasitic vampire embrace of the media and seemed to relish it. They have done this as a means of coloring the whole anti-iraq, I call it anti-iraq because most of the protestors I have picketed with have made the distinction, as being frivolous peaceniks. When I was in Graduate school a year or so ago I was active with the interfaith network in Dekalb, Il. One of the women that was instrumental in organizing Rosemarie Slavenas had a son who was a reservist and a helicopter pilot. You can read her and her son Brian's story at the The New Yorker The story was written by Calvin Trillin and it is very moving.
A good story and if the people who want to protest the war had use her as a figurehead, her dignity would have created a different outcome.
It's about a women who protested the war and a son who while against the Iraq war went and was killed when he was called up. I drink beers with the guy and shared mutual friends who ran the gamut of political views. I wonder why the Right Wing Media never latched on to her story. Why they focused so much on Sheehan who is so obviously unprepared for her role. Slavenas a retired professor holds a PhD and is very gifted in the area of protest organizing. I submit that the right wing media has a commercial interest in watching this Sheenhan who is so obviously a pathetic bundle of nerves implode. We have a long history of this type of voyeurism look at, Judy Garland, Betty Ford, Kitty Dukakis and Cortney Love we are glued to their self destruction we watch it as entertainment whether we acknowledge our shadenfreude or we merely continue to follow the story while all the time claiming to be appalled.
I love it that you know schadenfreude!  I agree it is a sick voyeurism  that is encouraged by the media to create revenue.  And this is exactly what I found disgusting about this entire Cindy Sheehan episode, which thankfully seems to have expired a timely death.
Slavenas would have been the war protest movements Rosa Parks but no outlets other than the New Yorker seems to be interested in viewing contrary acts as anything more than a Tijuana Donkey Show. All titilation and no substance. Make sure you read the New Yorker story before you throw around any of the cliche's about being a liberal dumbass. I ask this because even if you do not agree with me I would hope you would take my perspective seriously and contemplate the opposing views. Whether or not I am opposed to or support this "current" war (and you don't know because I haven't said ) is also immaterial.    It seems to me that you understand my point better in your references to the Tijuana Donkey Show.    The media "wants" to create a circus for their own purposes and Cindy Sheehan is/was helping them.  Some people want to re-create their youth and enjoy the adrenaline rush of protest, some media have a political agenda to support the war, some to protest the war, some don't care about the war or the young men and women in harms way and are more interested in just harming an administration that they hate.  Some people have honest motives like Ms Salvenas seems to have, however, it seems to me that most involved in this entire unsavory episode are self serving. 
Having seen the harm that well intentioned people can cause to the indiviual solders in the past, I fear that we are going down that same road again. 
I am reminded of two phrases or sayings.  First from the musical hair.
Oh, how can people have no feelingsHow can they ignore their friendsEasy to be proud; Easy to say noAnd especially people who care about strangersWho care about evil and social injusticeDo you only care about the bleeding crowd?
And..   When you are up to your ass in alligators it is too late to remember that the original solution was to drain the swamp.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Last post on this topic, I have wasted too much time here
Actually , I was speaking to your view on our foriegn policy.
You have no effing idea what my views are on our foreign policy.  I haven't said. I said I vote for people who I think/hope are going to express my preferences and don't vote for them again if they turn out to be false. Take to read I vote across party lines and hold opinions from libertarian to conservative on many different issues.  I didn't say I support the war in Iraq or that I support the policies of  "this" administration.  I also, as an American, support American foreign policy that supports American interests and not the interests of other countries.  Why that should be unusual, I don't know.   If we don't like what they are advancing, we can vote the bums out of office or even impeach the bums. 
You want to project what you think my views are.  Get a clue, buy a vowel and learn to read without putting your own preconceptions on some one else.
Must go take a chill pill now.

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

babbling looney wrote:
how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?
My daughter, just like Casey Sheehan, can make her own decisions and I will have to abide by those decisions.   As a grown up, adult woman, she is not mine to "offer up".
And this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with political issues such as the war in Iraq.  I have never mentioned Iraq or anything to do with the military. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem along with cruiser.  (I hope you listen to your clients better than you are able to read commentary)  What I object to is the dragging into public and politicising what should be a private process of grief.  Cindy Sheehan, dancing on the corpse of her dead son for her own self agrandizement is what I find disgusting.   There are constructive ways to protest and get your views out there. This is how we got Megans Law, this is how MADD was formed. Parents turning their grief into positive results.  I just find her way unseemly and sickening and especially find the parasites that cling to her for their own purposes to be disgusting human beings.
PS.  How about two nephews (who both were in Afganistan and Iraq as Army Rangers and thankfully home safe now), two of my uncles(career Air Force)?  I don't think the military is taking middle aged women. Although maybe they should since there is nothing more dangerous than a menopausal stock broker.

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

 
  I am not an Idiot, I just do not think it is my place to make judgement on how other people live their lives. You are a gutless coward. Sitting at your computer,taking pot-shots at someone who has given alot more than you could ever dream of to the war in Iraq. I know you will try and spin it some way to make you or your Values look better, but face it, YOUR WRONG.

exEJIR's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-12

Having spent time in two different war zones...
The current military is an all volunteer military.  When you sign up you acknowledge that you will "defend against ALL enemies, foriegn and domestic". 
War IS hell.  I felt sorry for my wife who was left behind (in the normal world) without any idea of where I was, or how I was doing.  But everyone who is over there knew what they were getting into. 
Having said that...  It is VERY important to support the troops, no matter what your feeling on the mission may be.  But, it is even MORE important to support the families of the troops, because like I said most of them don't even know where they are and how they are doing. 
And NOT KNOWING, my friends, is the hardest part.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

babbling looney wrote:
Last post on this topic, I have wasted too much time here
Actually , I was speaking to your view on our foriegn policy.
You have no effing idea what my views are on our foreign policy. 
You want to project what you think my views are.  Get a clue, buy a vowel and learn to read without putting your own preconceptions on some one else.
Must go take a chill pill now.

BL, BL, BL, In my post to answer  EJ in describing the book Rise of the Vulcans, you took one phrase of that answer and responded to it. That phrase was, Now is the time, while we are dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American Foreign policy. Your response was: And so...?  BL, exactly how was I suppose to read that, other than you support the war?
 
Our foreign policy is democracy at the point of a gun. We are no longer the guys in the white hats who ride to the rescue. As biggest bad ass on the planet, our new roll is to convert the world's population to our way of doing things, democracy. It's our way or the highway, even if we have to use some F18s and smart bombs to persuade thinking in our favor. Iraq, unfortunately, is just the first stop. And if you don't know this or believe this, then it is you who needs a clue. I'll give you that you may not be aware of this, or that you didn't intend your response to show support for this policy or the war. However, preconception? Not at all.  By clipping  the one hawkish phrase from my post and responding as you did, you sure sound like you support the war. I responded to that.  
T
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

TJC45,

Did they mention the whole "perpetual war" scenario in "The Vulcans" that was adopted by the City College intellectuals who made the shift from Communist Trotskyites to Neo-Conservatives? I think this comes as an almost unfathomable shock to most conservatives in that the foriegn policy that has developed seems to mimic that of the Soviets. Creating enclaves of US style democracy and wait for the dominos to fall.

The irony of course is the huge cost of providing fertile ground for this perspective is very expensive. So expensive that it caused the end to the Soviets and Communism as a force seemingly overnight. I would not assert that the US economy is this fragile but I would submit that all of the spending being done for this policy is frivolous and utopian.

If you still believe that Iraq is about terrorism from the Whitehouse's perspective read the work on the plan from the early nineties on this site.
It shows clearly that this war was not driven by national concerns of security but misguided idiology.

Either way I look forward to reading the book. It seems to be mentioned more and more these days.

Best,
Sonny

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Bab Loon,

Missed your response to my post. I apologize in so far as I suggested that you had not experienced the grief of an untimely death. To me it just seemed that your previous posts didn't reflect that you understood the need to attack someone or something in reaction to a loss. Not that I am the arbiter of these thing but I felt the need to respond either way. Is anger before or after bargaining in the five phases of grief?

I think I felt the same way that you did about the protesters at the beginning of the war. I was opposed to Iraq but I also thought that protests would extend the war and add to the numbers of our dead. Then I had an epiphany. I realized what caused so many to die in Vietnam wasn't the protesters, this is a false correlation.

This would be like saying that the draft riots in New York during the Civil War was what caused that war to go so badly for the North in the opening years. When in fact it was poor planning and leadership. If you think about the Vietnamese's dedication you have to admit our plans there were misguided and poorly devised.

The planners are to blame for Vietnam. Look at the history of the region. The French Foriegn legion at Dien Bien Phu were hard core ex-Nazi Germany Veterans who were pushed aside buy people who were willing to drag cannon up mountains by hand. Then they fought the US and lost between 1Million and 2Million people. Then after we left they defeated the Khmer Rouge and the Chinese. Our plan against these people was to roam around in the jungle and shoot anything that moved.

The protesters still took more than ten years to see this wars end, an ending they had little to do with. I would say that both the war planners and protestors were ineffective. If you can blame the protestors for anything though don't you believe you must blame them for not trying hard enough or being more effective, or for that matter the war planners as well? Not though for just the act of protest which seems to have mattered in this situation not a wit.

I believe also that your posts smacked a bit of the talking points of the Conservative Medias perspective on Sheehan as well. Key words that have run throughout the coverage. These key words and ideas seem to trigger in us liberals certain programmed reactions. They also seem to betray the alliances of those who choose to use them. Words and phrases like "seeking attention" "dignified grieving" or other approximations are part of the conservative message strategy and often seem to cause us to flinch.

We flinch because too often people who addopt this style often accept everything that the administration says without any question. Now a smart freethinker like yourself seems a little disingenous when you coyly ask "why we would think such things of you." Now I have to wonder where you truly stand? In that the thread has led us here I believe this is a valid question.

Best,
Sonny

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

SonnyClips wrote:TJC45, Did they mention the whole "perpetual war" scenario in "The Vulcans" that was adopted by the City College intellectuals who made the shift from Communist Trotskyites to Neo-Conservatives? I think this comes as an almost unfathomable shock to most conservatives in that the foriegn policy that has developed seems to mimic that of the Soviets. Creating enclaves of US style democracy and wait for the dominos to fall. The irony of course is the huge cost of providing fertile ground for this perspective is very expensive. So expensive that it caused the end to the Soviets and Communism as a force seemingly overnight. I would not assert that the US economy is this fragile but I would submit that all of the spending being done for this policy is frivolous and utopian. If you still believe that Iraq is about terrorism from the Whitehouse's perspective read the work on the plan from the early nineties on this site. It shows clearly that this war was not driven by national concerns of security but misguided idiology. Either way I look forward to reading the book. It seems to be mentioned more and more these days. Best, Sonny
Sonny, I don't recall all of the references in the book. As I said it doesn't trash neo-conservatives. As you mention in your post, misguided ideology, is closer to the mark. And how that ideology has been made policy and acted upon by the Bush administration. In today's paper there is a short AP story about Scooter Libby. It brings up a paper co-authored by himself and Paul Wolfowicz in the early nineties that said, recognizing that we are the World's only remaining super power we should use pre-emptive force to stop other nations from developing weapons of mass destruction as well as stop other nations from becoming rival super powers. Sound familiar? The book shows how their careers, and experiences acted on our national policy makers and their beliefs.
Another interesting book is "Against All Enemies" By Richard Clark. The White House spin machine has done it's best to discredit Clark as a disgruntled ex employee. But there's just too much fact backing Clark's version of Bush's early anti terror policy to blow it off.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Cruiser wrote:
 
   I wonder what you would do if your child was to die. You act like Sheehnan is doing all this for attention.
Sheehan simply proves that being a grieving mother doesn't mean you can't also be a fool and a publicity hound. "End the military occupation of New Orleans", indeed.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:I believe that TJC45 and Cruiser are reacting to something that is inconsistent in your values. .
Funny, I thought they were simply responding to some mental shortcomings of their own.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:
Another interesting book is "Against All Enemies" By Richard Clark. The White House spin machine has done it's best to discredit Clark as a disgruntled ex employee.

 As well he is.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote: I wonder why the Right Wing Media never latched on to her story. Why they focused so much on Sheehan who is so obviously unprepared for her role.
 
Yeah, that's what happened, it was the "Right Wing Media" that made Sheenhan such a public figure. Geezee, what a steamy load....

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

[quote=tjc45
Our foreign policy is democracy at the point of a gun. We are no longer the guys in the white hats who ride to the rescue. As biggest bad ass on the planet, our new roll is to convert the world's population to our way of doing things, democracy.
What a wonderfully convoluted argument in favor of dictatorships and against democracy, READ:FREEDOM. Now, tell me again how it’s so evil that we should help people out from under a dictator’s boot and into the light of freedom….<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Did they mention the whole "perpetual war" scenario in "The Vulcans" that was adopted by the City College intellectuals who made the shift from Communist Trotskyites to Neo-Conservatives? I think this comes as an almost unfathomable shock to most conservatives in that the foriegn policy that has developed seems to mimic that of the Soviets.
 
ROFLMAO, back to Sonny's ludicrous attempts demonize William Kristol and interject Trotskyite traits  into today’s US foreign policy all because Irvin, William’s father, as a college student had a brief infatuation with Trotskyism…. He even buys into the lunatic fringe’s conspiracy theory that Project for the New American Century directs US foreign policy (how many PNAC members work at the White House?). I guess the fact that regime change in Iraq became US policy back in 1998, long before Bush and the eviilllll neocons came to power just confuses the daylights out of them….
SonnyClips wrote:
The irony of course is the huge cost of providing fertile ground for this perspective is very expensive. So expensive that it caused the end to the Soviets and Communism as a force seemingly overnight.

What a mind-numbingly stupid attempt at a parallel. One, the Soviets weren't exporting freedom, they were exporting Marxist slavery at the point of an AK-47. Second, the USSR economy collapsed because Marxism simply doesn't work, not because of their foreign policy.
<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:
Our foreign policy is democracy at the point of a gun. We are no longer the guys in the white hats who ride to the rescue. As biggest bad ass on the planet, our new roll is to convert the world's population to our way of doing things, democracy.
What a wonderfully convoluted argument in favor of dictatorships and against democracy, READ:FREEDOM. Now, tell me again how it’s so evil that we should help people out from under a dictator’s boot and into the light of freedom.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Let's not devolve in to ranting and raving. So far I think its been "evil" because it has been horribly ineffective. If you don't believe me consult Brent Scowcroft's piece in the Times.

As far as the PNAC stuff, Rumsfeld was a member who tried to urge Clinton to invade Iraq. I myself don't believe in the whole intricate theory route and you become tiresome continuing to label me with this. The Trotsky thing is documented on the very Republican and upstanding journal the National Review.

While ironic I also don't think that it is a revelation to see parallels where actions are being based on ideology instead of realities. Essentially that is the schism right now that is described by Scowcroft. You should look into it instead of berating the man and dispelling the perspective out of hand.

I would honestly like you to give your perspective on why you believe this war in Iraq is such an unmitigated success. Because I personally would like it to be one. I would be much happier if I were completely proven wrong. I think though that the mere fact that there is an insurgency means that failure is a foregone conclusion. But I really would like an example of a country that isn't willing to level entire cities was able to win in a situation like our own and in say 9years if possible.

As far as Bill Kristol is concerned I admire his intellect and I think he wants whats best for the country I believe the his pespective is highly abstract. He is not a Communist, this I know. But believe it or not Marxist criticism and the study of other Communist thinkers like Trotsky is still considered a legitimate pusuit amongst people who are intersted in exploring ideas. And while the utopianism of Communism as a economic form has been discredited no one can argue that they were very successful at using this flawed ideology as a means to become powerful and excercise this power on other states.

I think that Kristol understands that building a mythical power to a set of ideas as a means to "infect" societies with our idiology. I think it is a sound idea in theory and maybe in practice but honestly our doing so in the less the fertile ground of Iraq seems misguided. No big plot, demons or intricate conspiricy theories here just straight forward reasoning. Read some Bill Kristol and you'll see what I am saying, the Weekly Standard puts out some compelling ideas and also has minted quite a few fine conservative journalists like David Brooks.

As far as the CCCP falling because of their foriegn policy just look up the numbers on what they payed out to Cuba and Angola. They would have failed eventually but all that spending sure sped up the process. If I'm not mistaken that was also the strategy behind Teller and Reagan' s Idea to pursue the Strategic Defense Initiative. Now are you going to say disparaging things about Reagan and Teller?

Please leave the baiting and harrassment behind like I am trying too. I really would like to see this whole Iraq thing as moving in a positive direction.

Best,
Sonny

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Oh and did you here Fitzgerald on the I. Lewis Libby indictment... Compelling.

TJC,

Read the Clark book, wonder if Butler would? I liked it of course I need to get the "Vulcans" one though. I would also like to check out the Paul O'Neil book.

Best,
Sonny

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Let's not devolve in to ranting and raving. So far I think its been "evil" because it has been horribly ineffective. If you don't believe me consult Brent Scowcroft's piece in the Times.

Oh, golly, there's a critic. That PROVES it must be a bad policy. BTW, did Brent bother to talk to any Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in free elections? And just how many years into a free Iraq will it be before the critics change their tune?
SonnyClips wrote:As far as the PNAC stuff, Rumsfeld was a member who tried to urge Clinton to invade Iraq.

Rumsfeld's not a member of PNAC, and Clinton made regime change HIS policy and the policy of the US government without any evvvviiillll neo-cons in his administration.
SonnyClips wrote:
I myself don't believe in the whole intricate theory route and you become tiresome continuing to label me with this.

You don't believe it, but you can't help but bring up the theory every so often...
SonnyClips wrote:
The Trotsky thing is documented on the very Republican and upstanding journal the National Review.

"The Trotsky thing" being the fact that Bill's father had a brief membership in a Trotskite organization like so many other Leftists of his day. BFD.
SonnyClips wrote:I would honestly like you to give your perspective on why you believe this war in Iraq is such an unmitigated success.

War is never an unmitigated success. This war is no different. OTOH, over the whines of the critics  (the ones that were screaming "quagmire" on day three of the invasion, the ones that warned of the "harsh Afghan winter" in the prior conflict) there's been a handover of power to an interium Iraqi government, and election, a constitutional proposal written and accepted by the voter and in December, there will be full-fledged goverment elected. The Iraqis are taking up the cause of their defense and are doing most of the bleeding an dying these days.
SonnyClips wrote:
Because I personally would like it to be one.

ROFLMAO, you'd lose your chance to be a knee-jerk Bush critic, you'd hate it. Gee, even that windbag Joe Wilson admitted he was disappointed that the Iraqis voted for the constitution, at least try to be honest.
SonnyClips wrote:I think though that the mere fact that there is an insurgency means that failure is a foregone conclusion.\

Please tell me you're joking. Failure is a foregon conclusion just because there's an element that wants to defeat democracy? Are you kidding? The "insurgency" can't hold territory, was rejected by the Sunnis as they decided to join the democratic process for the last vote and they've changed their objective from killing US troops to killing innocent civilians. Hardly the voice of the people at work there.
SonnyClips wrote:As far as Bill Kristol is concerned I admire his intellect .....He is not a Communist, this I know. But believe it or not Marxist criticism and the study of other Communist thinkers like Trotsky is still considered a legitimate pusuit amongst people who are intersted in exploring ideas.

That kid of gibberish would make Joe McCarthy blush. You keep ranting Trotsky, Trotsky as if it means something significant that his FATHER, IN HIS COLLEGE DAYS was a Trotskite for a couple of years. Give it a rest. For crying out loud, REAGAN was the head of a UNION, does that mean he was a unionist president decades later?
SonnyClips wrote:
As far as the CCCP falling because of their foriegn policy just look up the numbers on what they payed out to Cuba and Angola. They would have failed eventually but all that spending sure sped up the process.
[/quotes]
There's the phrase I was looking for "they would have failed anyway". Correct, foreign policy or not, their Marxist economy was doomed to failure. They could have stayed home and baked cookies and it would have failed.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Oh and did you here Fitzgerald on the I. Lewis Libby indictment... Compelling.
Did I hear it? Yes, I did. If Libby lied to a grand jury, he should pay the price. Clinton should have as well.
Notice no one was charged with exposing a CIA operative, and that Rove's free. Sorry Fitzmas was such a washout for you.... 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

All you need to know about Clarke is how ineffective against Al Qaeda the US government was when he was in charge of the section watching him. They didn't bother to take him into custody 3 times when offered, they let him out of a training camp in Afghanistan when they had him in their sites. Clarke lied when he said that HIS input stopped the millennium bomber in Seattle (the border guard thought she had a drug trafficker, no warning on bombers ever made it to her post), he lied when he said Condalezza hadn't ever heard of AQ until HE briefed her on them (a tape of an earlier interview proved him wrong).<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Bottom line, he was pissed he lost his daily briefing of the pres gig when Bush decided to hear from the head of the CIA and the FBI rather than their 2nd string, as Clinton did. In fact, the flight out of the country of a number of bin Laden's family right after 9/11, the flights that drove Michael Moore to rant any number of conspiracies, guess who approved of it? Richard Clarke.....

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Tell me why you believe this. You even recoiled from describing the reason why Reagan and Teller devised SDI as a means of out spending the CCCP. I'm am serious, I want you to formulate an argument. I want you to tell me why Scowcroft is wrong. I want you to describe another insurgency that has been defeated in a similar scenario. You know as well as I do the cyclical nature of military history. Mongol conquest and its aversion to admiring heroic death and Patton's speech admitting that it is not "dying for your country that counts but making the other poor dumb bastard die for his;" Thermopolie and Agincourt amongst others.

I really really want to be positive about Iraq, I am sincere, and talking about battlefield success in Afganistan does not count towards success in Iraq. I admit the nattering naybobs of negativity were wrong about us being in a quagmire about the Afgani conflict.

You still haven't proved that my perspective on Trotskyite. As far as Rummy being a PNACer check the website. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

This shows that not only Rummy is in there but Jebediah, Wolfy, Scooter, Cheney and that old City College Lefty Podhoretz are down with the PNAC Perspective.

So please make an argument that could at least be farther reaching than "you are a liberal and you suck, Sonny." I would be interested to read it.

Best,
Sonny

How many indictments is that now for your team and not one was protecting the wife and kids from a story about them being a chubby chaser.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Podhoretz was as Red as they come, like the shade of Joe McCarthy blushing. Did you know Joe was tight with the Kennedy's? Why didn't you throw that into your rant.

Make an argument, for Iraq please.

Best,
Sonny

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Jeb being more competent than W might have made the whole Iraq sceme work, funny thing about fate.

Best,
Sonny

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Tell me why you believe this. You even recoiled from describing the reason why Reagan and Teller devised SDI as a means of out spending the CCCP.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You mean why do I believe the Soviet economy was doomed to failure? Do I really need to explain that? Here's your problem, YES, Reagan knew he could speed the process of Soviet collapse, HOWEVER, you made it sound as if the USSR would have survived had it not pursued its foreign policy. Note the difference, they were going down the drain EITHER WAY, and not because of their foreign policy. Therefore some comparison to "cost" and an attempt to liken the Soviet collapse to a US-like foreign policy is simply bogus.
SonnyClips wrote:
 I want you to tell me why Scowcroft is wrong.

Because Saddam was not going to be "contained" (as if you could even do such a thing when WMDs can be moved without detection). Saddam was not only not going to be contained, he was on the very edge (via buying German and French support by way of his food-for-oil bribes) of completely escaping international scrutiny. Sanctions were going to end, the inspections were going to end, Saddam was going to be free to pursue whatever it is he wanted to.
Now, you tell me why it's so shocking to you, why it's so amazing that a decision as momentus as going to war wouldn’t have critics. You make it sound like the very existence of critics proves something important.
SonnyClips wrote:
I want you to describe another insurgency that has been defeated in a similar scenario.

The mistake you make is twofold. First, you want to surrender immediately because there’s some resistance to democracy. Do you really believe that freedom is so weak a human goal that it always collapses in the face of resistance? Secondly you make the assumption that the insurgency represents some legitimate nationalism and represents the people. They don’t. In fact they’ve targeted the civilian population, a population that proved they by risking their lives to vote that they reject the terrorists.
SonnyClips wrote:I really really want to be positive about Iraq, I am sincere, and talking about battlefield success in Afganistan does not count towards success in Iraq. I admit the nattering naybobs of negativity were wrong about us being in a quagmire about the Afgani conflict.

I want to believe you’re sincere, but I can’t. Giving Bush a defeat is more important to most Democrats than US success and Iraqi freedom. As you said yourself, the same voices crying quagmire today were crying the same thing before we entered Afghanistan. They were making the same noises after three days of the invasion of Iraq. They’ve ignored every single success in the timeline established to creating a free Iraq. They have far too much invested in defeat to enjoy a success.
SonnyClips wrote:You still haven't proved that my perspective on Trotskyite.

Your “persepective” is laughable. So what that Kristol’s father was a Trotskyite as a college freshman? I was a liberal Democrat in college. BFD.
SonnyClips wrote:
 As far as Rummy being a PNACer check the website. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy without a single eeevvvillll neo-con on his staff. Spin that anyway you’d like.
SonnyClips wrote:So please make an argument that could at least be farther reaching than "you are a liberal and you suck, Sonny." I would be interested to read it.

Again, you’re the knight without arms and legs screaming it’s only a flesh wound. My side of the conversation has been anything BUT what you described.
SonnyClips wrote:How many indictments is that now for your team and not one was protecting the wife and kids from a story about them being a chubby chaser.
ROFLMAO, like Hilary needed to be “protected” from news that Bill was didling the staff. If Libby lied to the GJ, he should face the music, the same applied to Clinton attempting to hide evidence in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Jeb being more competent than W might have made the whole Iraq sceme work, funny thing about fate.
Right, that's how war works. The guy in the oval office personally sets the tactics, leads the fight, wears the uniform, etc.. Man you're really off your game, Sonny.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BTW, Sonny, since you're hysterical about the PNAC and their set of principles, how about pointing out what you object to, specifically.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

WTF does any of this have to do with Rosa Parks?

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×