Posted on 08/10/2005 1:47:20 PM PDT by Sam Hill
From: SCINDY...@aol.com
To: ter...@mweb.co.th ; bullyard@googlegroups.com
Cc: skee...@ksc.th.com ; jwa...@cox.net ; h...@bfranklin.edu ; steppenwo...@msn.com ; Kurn...@netscape.net ; m...@loxinfo.co.th ; TQMN...@aol.com ; zpbr...@cox.net ; sharinpa...@hotmail.com ; v...@netium.com.br
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Nightline Tonight Mon., March 14, 2005
That was my son's unit. He was killed on that day 04/04/04. Here is a letter that I wrote to NightLine about the broadcast:
Love
Cindy Sheehan
March 15, 2005
To Whom it May Concern:
Imagine my distress when I turned Night Line on last night and I was confronted with the gory details of my son's murder in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq on 04/04/04. Imagine, also, my sorrow and rage at the side of the story that you presented to the American public.
[SNIP]
I was on the Night Line Townhall Meeting in Washington, DC on 01/27/05. After I spoke (which I think was a fluke), Ted Koppel dismissed me as being "emotional." First of all, how can I approach this discussion without emotions, MY SON WAS KILLED, AND KILLED FOR LIES? Second of all, that show was not fair and balanced and I think the conclusion "Should we stay" was foregone.
The show last night was also not fair and balanced. To see all the wives being interviewed who had not lost their husbands and to hear what "hard work" it is to be left behind when their husbands are at war. How hard to you think it is to have a child killed in an illegal and immoral war? In this "wonderful" group of families left behind, we had exactly ONE of the wives call us..she is Diane Rose who was my son's Colonel, Frank Rose's wife. The last time we heard from Diane was in October and we feel we have been left behind by anyone connected to the 2-5 Cavalry. Is support only given if your loved one stays alive? One wife was quoted as saying that Sundays were the hardest for the families left behind. My son was killed on Palm Sunday last year..how does anybody think Sundays are for my family?
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.
It would be so amazing if your show would put me, or another parent who lost their child on who disagrees with the war and this administration: to have just an entire show..without presenting the false side of the debate. That would take a lot of courage and integrity. I hope your program will exhibit these qualities.
I also think that Mr. Koppel owes me an apology for the rude way I was treated on his show. After I expressed myself about the war being based on lies and that the troops should be brought home immediately because the war was based on lies, I was not thanked for my comments, or my son's sacrifice. He just said to keep the discussion away from emotions. Then, the wife of a soldier who was killed was allowed to speak and she praised the policies of this deplorable and despicable administration, and she was thanked and praised by the panel.
Fair enough.
Yep. She's a gutless turd coward anti-war freak. Thank God BO'R made mention of the fact she was posting on the MM website, for I for one, read some of her whacked out rantings last night. No wonder her husband divorced her and her whacked out views.
Here are the reason we went to Iraq.
WMD was a very small part of it.
Stopping them before they had WMD..which is what we did...was a bigger part.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html
Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
what!?
Technology has changed the world.
It has both eliminated the need and the wisdom of living in cities.
I would America stop immigration, as the more people, the harder to become self sufficient.
And the more people, the denser the population, which makes the use of WMDs more deadly.
America should isolate herself as much as possible, become as self-sufficent as possible, and her population should begin to move back to live in rural areas.
We no longer need to work right next door to each other--many of us can telecommute from homes in the country.
Cities are obsolete and present a fat target for terrorists possessing WMD's.
I do not believe we can completely stop terrorist from the mideast or wherever, from some day attacking us with WMDs.
BUT--for a weapon of mass destruction to work, it needs a mass of people to act upon.
Therefore, the best fortress is no fortress.
People should return to living in rural areas.
That will be the best way to protect against WMD terrorism.
Even during the cold war, the government advised city planners to attempt to spread out urban areas, but city planners ignored that adivce.
Under the fear of WMD terrorism, it's even better advice today.
Not by "my" logic at all, but if that's your version of "logic", then that does explain quite a lot about YOU. LOL
"She needs to be asked the simple question about the "real" reason why her son joined the military???"
The real reason her son joined the military is the same as that of most other boys: a carrot is dangled in their face and told to sign at the bootom of the form. And hooked they are!
Oh my goodness, I wonder WHERE she got that idea. It's absolutely bizarre!
Doesn't that just read like it came straight off the VLWC fax distro?
Cindy Sheehan: "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."
Oh for crying out loud lady get a clue!
When I hear this kind of nonsense it makes me want to slap the person upside the head in the hope that they'll stop and think.
You got anything to back that up?
Ummmmm.....That's not going to happen. None of those things.
First of all hiding and hoping for the best is not a strategy. Running away and living far from others is not a good defence. It's no defence at all. And what will you do when they attack?
Even if you aren't hit, you are going to ignore the deaths of your countrymen? You won't want justice?
With all due respect, that is just whack. That reminds me of racists and Neo-Nazis and all those freaks whose solution for life's problems is to blame other people (preferably those who look different), move to a compound in the middle of nowhere, hope for the best (and/or the worst) and indoctrinate their children to do the same.
Short of some sort of armageddon scenario, there is not going to be reverse urbanization, with everyone moving back to the countryside.
Also, stopping immigration altogether is impossible. As long as we are wishing, I wish for heaven on earth.
Furthermore, even if America forgets the world and stops doing things and stops trading and spreading culture and everything else they do that people hate, the world will not forget or forgive.
Furthermore, technology needs cities to operate for a large number of reasons. Cities are also opportunity cost efficient, when you are looking at the big picture, so it's not likely that people will choose NOT to live in cities.
Doing nothing is no way to defend yourself, no way to win a war, and is unAmerican and unWestern.
See my post, number 668, to Freeper, Alexander Rubin, on this page http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460787/posts?page=668#668
"You got anything to back that up?"
Forty years of adult life experience.
Now, don't come back to me and ask for sources other than my own experience. I'm my own source, he's his own source, etc.
I thought the FReeper Foxhole ought to have the opportunity to comment upon TAquinas'... fascinating observation, re: the American military.
He volunteered to go. He obviously believed in what he was doing. Cindy, OTOH is against America being in Iraq, wants people to give aid and comfort to the very terrorists who killed her son, and in doing so, spits on him and all of our troops over there.
And just how on earth do you know what her son would think of her now? Neither the rest of her children, nor her husband concur with her present behavior and words. That should give far more of an insight into how her dead son would react, than your imaginings.
If you believe your enemy may use fire as a weapon against you, you build in stone.
In the future--thanks to ever developing technology--keeping WMDs (atomic, biological, chemical) from terrorists will be as hard as keeping fire from them.
So, we should stop living in a manner especially vulnerable to the weapon of our enemy.
The safe manner to live, is to disperse population.
Were there a handful of Americans per square mile, why would anyone go through the bother of obtaining a WMD to kill a handful of Americans, when a simple gun would be as good?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.