Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rethinkin Sympathy: Cindy Sheehan's Lies
The Tin Ear ^ | 08/15/05 | Will Malven

Posted on 08/15/2005 6:39:54 PM PDT by WillMalven

I was planning to let the Cindy issue stand and move on to other issues. The problem is that she remains the “darling” of the Leftist American press, left-over hippies from the ‘60s who never got over Nixon and Vietnam, and young hippie wannabes in pursuit of an identity chasing the “flavor of the month” cause. Having listened to and read her latest words, I no longer believe that this woman is an innocent, being used by the left. I believe that she is entirely complicit in this whole campaign and feel compelled to continue to comment in defense of the troops and the President.

She is not a woman distraught at losing a child; she is a hatemonger using the death of her son to bash the President and the United States. Her own words convict her. She is more reminiscent of a stalker than a mourner. Her obsessive hatred is far beyond any which might be explained in the pain from loss. She is not deluded by some Machiavellian plot of extreme Left-wing activist “kooks,” she is an extreme Left-wing activist kook. She had this Leftist anti-war stance well before her son was killed. She is not mourning his loss, she is not turning her efforts towards helping her own family or other families who have lost loved ones, cope with their losses, instead she is picking at the scab of their healing wounds, delaying the healing process and prolonging their pain. This is not a nice woman; this is not a caring woman; this is a hateful, destructive, selfish, woman who is more interested in her own political agenda than in healing the damage she has done to her own family in pursuing this wrongly directed vendetta.

Mrs. Sheehan’s son died a hero’s death trying to rescue his fellow soldiers from an ambush in Sadr City. He deserves to be remembered for that sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, he made in a selfless act of courage. Thanks to Cindy, he will be remembered as sacrificial lamb dragged through the streets of America to prop up her anti-America, anti-Bush, campaign against the war in Iraq. She attempts to garner sympathy with her sad tale of a mother in grief, rebuffed by an uncaring, cold hearted, war mongering president, in her time of greatest need. A mother who lost her son, seduced into serving by lies, to a war which was started by a lying administration bent on enriching its friends and top contributors. Unfortunately for Cindy, she is wiping the tears from her eyes with a tissue of lies. There have been incorrect assertions from this administration, but the term “lies” conveys the intent to deceive and there is no corroborative evidence, direct or indirect, that this administration ever made assertions regarding this war which were intended to deceive the American people.

When WMD were cited as a reason for attacking Saddam, it was universally believed by all intelligence organizations that they existed in Iraq. When Iraq’s attempt to buy high grade uranium ore from Africa was mentioned, there was and still is substantial evidence for that attempt. In spite of the fact that the Bush administration has backed away from that assertion, the British have not. They continue to maintain the veracity of their intelligence. When the Saddam-al Qaeda connection was discussed, it was and has been proven to have been extensive and real. Even the faulty 9-11 Commission Report confirmed the numerous links of al Qaeda to Saddam’s Iraq. Since its publication, evidence has only grown that those links were extensive. Of course those on the Left will insist that the 9-11 report says there were no links between al Qaeda and Iraq, but they are not fully reading the report and are quoting William Clarke’s testimony out of context, not the report of the commission itself.

Another of the lies coming out of the Sheehan camp is that President Bush has been changing the reason for the war as each one has proven false (of course only the WMD assumption has proven so). The fact is that President Bush has never wavered from his original statement as to why we were going to Iraq except for the admission that we have found no WMD and that contrary to intelligence gathered by the CIA, MI6, the French DRM, and the Russian SVR, apparently there were none when we entered Iraq. Certainly the emphasis has changed as the situation has changed, but the president included WMD, al Qaeda links to Iraq, freeing the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, fighting terrorism in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight it here, and establishing a stable democracy in his speeches leading up to the war.

The most recent and biggest lie to come out of the Left is the lie that Bush never wanted a peaceful end to the Iraq situation, that according to the Downing Street Memo, Bush planned on fighting a war from the start. Beyond the obvious argument that the famous line “the intelligence was being fixed around” going to war means that the efforts at obtaining intelligence was being concentrated on that possibility, it would have been insane to expect anything else given Saddam’s record. Saddam had never, repeat that NEVER, been an honest dealer with the UN or with the USA. To have expected him to suddenly be cooperative would have been naïve at the very least (something Liberals are very good at). Going to war with Iraq was virtually inevitable once it was decided to confront him on the WMD issue.

Personally I would have been astounded had the Bush Administration not been making war plans with Iraq. I would expect there to have been half a dozen possible scenarios fully worked up prior to our going in. When one is talking about the possibility of going to war, he wants to be prepared for any eventuality. I would have had every available intelligence officer working on the move into Iraq once I had decided that it was possible. I would certainly not have waited until the deadline ran out before I made my plans and started gathering intelligence. What the anti-war, anti-Bush people are suggesting President Bush should have done, not plan early, falls into a category I reserve for the pacifists of the Left, stupid, naïve, and DUMB. Had President Bush done that, then there truly would be grounds for impeachment. To suggest that the President didn’t try to get Saddam to give up peaceably is a base lie. Having sought and obtained a UN resolution, the President made one last effort on March 16th, 2003 to get Saddam to comply, meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Azores, Portugal. Following that meeting, the President then gave Saddam Hussein a forty-eight hour ultimatum to leave Iraq. Quoting the President from his speech on March 17, 2003:

On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger [my emphasis], but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

The President never sought this war; he came to it in the genuine belief that Iraq posed a very real and growing danger to its neighbors and, with its connections to al Qaeda, the United States. He gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid it. But Saddam chose to rely upon assurances from his French allies that they could subvert any move toward war by the UN. They were right, they were able to subvert America’s efforts in the Security Council, but what they didn’t count on is an American President whose resolve and determination were not to be ruled by the UN. What they didn’t expect was a President who, unlike Clinton or Gore, was an American first. Now those who oppose this war have every right to quibble and complain that it was unnecessary and that we should end it. They cross the line when they say that President Bush “lied to get us into the war.” That is simply a fantasy derived from their own opinion, founded on Chimerical assumptions.

The Left wingers have great contempt for those of us who support the President in this war, describing us variously as being “dumb,” “brainwashed,” “hicks,” “evil,” “mean spirited,” “war mongers,” and a host of other more “colorful” names which you can find in the “comments” sections of this and other conservative blogs. That is alright with me as I have at least as much contempt for them. Their penchant for name calling and insult throwing fails to impress me as cogent arguments for their cause. Quite the opposite. It leads me to think of them as inarticulate, slavish followers of anti-American, opportunistic, socialist, hate-mongers such as Mikhail Mooresky, Alexi Frankenov, Susansky Sarandonova and her pet Tiny Tim.

Now as to Cindy. We know for sure that she lies. We have her own words on it. She has given us two different accounts of her meeting with President Bush following her son’s death in April of 2004. We have her assertion that her now estranged husband [link] supported her, an assertion we now know to be false. She asserted that she was not a political activist prior to her sons death (an assertion to which I alluded in one of my editorials on Cindy[link]). We now know that she was a political activist against the war before her son was killed. She has claimed that she only wanted to talk to President Bush in order to ask him what the “noble cause” was for which her son died. Yet she arrived in Crawford riding in a red, white, and blue, bus emblazoned with “Impeachment Tour.” If all she was seeking was a meeting with the President, wouldn’t it have made more sense for her to avoid the publicity and caravan of anti-war protesters and seek the meeting in private? She would have been much more likely to have achieved her stated goal that way. Of course, the answer is she doesn’t want to meet with the President; she wants to generate a side show for the MSM. Her worst lie of all though is that Casey died for no good reason. Casey obviously didn’t believe that, he was the first to volunteer for the rescue mission. Cindy Sheehan is a publicity seeker looking to get all the attention she can for her Liberal agenda. Hardly the sympathetic figure the MSM is portraying. For those on the Left who feel it is indecent to invade her private life and difficulties, I can only say that it is of her own volition that she has become such a public figure, inviting such scrutiny and it is she that is invading the President’s privacy by harassing him while he is trying to get some time to himself from working at the most stressful and difficult job on the planet. Cindy go home, your family needs you more than we do.

Evil wins hearts with the face of innocence, poisons minds with the voice of need, and destroys goodness by seducing its kindness. It never appears in its own diseased skin.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: cindy; cindysheehan; lies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last
This is my fourth on Cindy (didn't post the third here).
1 posted on 08/15/2005 6:39:55 PM PDT by WillMalven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WillMalven
More and more people are exposing this woman for exactly what she is.

...and that is that her activities are a complete sham.

Although it is clear from her own words that she was anti-Bush and anti-war before the death of her son, after his death and after a compassionate meeting with our President, she was trained for several months by a far left PR firm. She is being supported and egged on by the most virulent anti-Ameircan and anti-Bush groups. After all of this, she comes out with her hate-filled story against the President, spouting all of the far left taking points, and using her grief as a tool of the far-left, anti-American crowd. It is a perversion and desecration of grief that should outrage all Americans.

This is a contrived, made for MSM, event, that the far left and their MSM abettors feel is unassailable because of the grieving mother image. Well, hainvg lost my own father last year, and a brother last year too (not in the war), and having lost an only uncle on my Mom's side (my grandparents only boy) in WW II...I can empathize with her grief...but when that grief is turned to hate America and a tool for those who wish to destroy our nation and life style...I will not, I cannot be quiet about it or buy-into that Cindy Sheehan is somehow unassailable while she spouts this hate and garbage.

It is despicable what is happening and it needs to be stood up four-square to.

This lady has admitted to wanting to defy US law and drive her enlisted son to Canada to escape his orders. She has admitted to offering to drive over is legs with her automobile to help him avoid service. Her patriotic son refused both of her dish and voluntarily re-upped with the military to go to Iraq, then while there, volunteered for a dangerous combat mission to help his comrades. He was killed on that mission and is a hero. Pardon the expression, but she is tinkling on his grave and trying to tell us that the moisture are her tears. She says our President killed her son, that the war is only about oil, that it only about defending Israel, that our nation is not worth dieing for, that the US and our President are the terrorists for heaven's sake!

No, I will not be quiet and will call this exactly what I see that it is...a sham and a disgusting spectacle.

Sorry...I am very worked up about this.

Here's my open letter to Cindy Sheehan.

2 posted on 08/15/2005 6:42:56 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven

Very well stated, sir.
Glenn Beck today called her a "tragedy slut". Couple leftist moonbats called him up about that.


3 posted on 08/15/2005 6:46:36 PM PDT by Past Your Eyes (Some people are too stupid to be ashamed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven

4 posted on 08/15/2005 6:50:11 PM PDT by South40 (Amnesty for ILLEGALS is a slap in the face to the USBP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven
Cindy Sheehan serves the anti-war left in the same way that a suicide bomber serves the terrorists.

She strapped on the vest, got in front of the cameras...and figuratively blew herself up.

Now, the left hopes her blood splatters on the President. But, by the time all the body parts fall back to earth, they'll have turned and walked away -- anxious to start the next fundraiser.

5 posted on 08/15/2005 6:50:35 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven
Another of the lies coming out of the Sheehan camp is that President Bush has been changing the reason for the war as each one has proven false (of course only the WMD assumption has proven so).

As far as I am concerned WMD have been found.That they did`nt have printed on them "Acme weapon of mass destruction to be used against the USA" to satisfy the MSM is of no relevancy to me.

6 posted on 08/15/2005 6:51:15 PM PDT by carlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven
... When WMD were cited as a reason for attacking Saddam,..

I don't recall that assertion ever being made by W or his administration.

7 posted on 08/15/2005 6:59:20 PM PDT by evad ( PC KILLS..and so do liberal judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven
Wonderful column, with many great sentences. I especially think this one deserves repeating
it is of her own volition that she has become such a public figure, inviting such scrutiny

8 posted on 08/15/2005 6:59:51 PM PDT by syriacus (Cindy Sheehan is guilty of a FAUX CAUSE -- Cindy Sheehan is guilty of a FAUX CAUSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven; Mo1; Miss Marple; deport; Zacs Mom; All

Excellent........just excellent!


9 posted on 08/15/2005 7:00:57 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad

You are correct.


10 posted on 08/15/2005 7:02:36 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
I liked these:

She is not a woman distraught at losing a child; she is a hatemonger using the death of her son to bash the President and the United States. Her own words convict her. She is more reminiscent of a stalker than a mourner. Her obsessive hatred is far beyond any which might be explained in the pain from loss. She is not deluded by some Machiavellian plot of extreme Left-wing activist “kooks,” she is an extreme Left-wing activist kook.

11 posted on 08/15/2005 7:03:35 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven
DYNAMITE piece! Man, you are GOOD!

Pardon me while I post this part just to savor later.

Evil wins hearts with the face of innocence, poisons minds with the voice of need, and destroys goodness by seducing its kindness. It never appears in its own diseased skin.

12 posted on 08/15/2005 7:07:16 PM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven

>Mrs. Sheehan’s son died a hero’s death trying to rescue his fellow soldiers from an ambush in Sadr City. He deserves to be remembered for that sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, he made in a selfless act of courage. Thanks to Cindy, he will be remembered as sacrificial lamb dragged through the streets of America to prop up her anti-America, anti-Bush, campaign against the war in Iraq.<

I am capable of remembering U.S. Army specialist Casey Sheehan in more than one way and I think others are also.

>Certainly the emphasis has changed as the situation has changed, but the president included WMD, al Qaeda links to Iraq, freeing the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator,<

I was watching The O'Reilly Factor tonight and Bill lost a bit more respect with me on a couple of points - He keeps referring to Mrs. Sheehan as a "liar". [no spin?]. His guest was John Kerry's campaign manager -a most calm and exact man. He [can't remember his name] drove home the point that the circumstances of going to war in Iraq had changed in numerous ways. [quote above from this post's article] Bill O'Reilly at one point interupted his guest with a loud remark "I couldn't care less about the war in Iraq". [no spin?] The guest pointed out that the whole Sheehan debate had to do with the war in Iraq.


13 posted on 08/15/2005 7:08:24 PM PDT by winston2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad
 
 
... When WMD were cited as a reason for attacking Saddam,..

I don't recall that assertion ever being made by W or his administration.

President Bush's reasons for invading Iraq:

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

Reason Number 1: In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

Reason Number 2:  In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

Reason Number 3: In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

Reason Number 4: In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

Reason Number 5: From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Reason Number 6:  Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

Reason Number 7:  In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

Reason Number 8: In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again. As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

This is a list of eight reasons to invade Iraq. Only one of them concerns weapons of mass destruction and even it doesn't say he has them.

Also, if this sounds a bit like President Bush's speech to the United Nations on September 12th 2002, that's because it is his speech. (or at least the parts concerning Iraq)

Below is a list of recommended demands from the President to the Iraqi regime found in this speech. None of them seem unreasonable even today.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

I personally am getting sick and tired of listening to schmucks like Cindy Sheehan say we went to war because of WMD's.  IN FACT WE DID NOT!  The left and the mainstream press, most notably the New York Times promoted the WMD line to the point that it appeared to be the only reason for war. Then after the successful accomplishment of brain washing the most ignorant and susceptible of the American public around this point, they (including France, Germany and Russia) changed their tune and started attacking the President and only on the single issue of WMD.

The reasons behind France, Germany and Russia have all been exposed. Corruption in the case of Chirac and Iraq. Trendy America Bashing for Germany so Schroeder could get re-elected, and the most honest of the three, Russia, was simply owed 8 billion dollars by Iraq.

Does anyone out there remember that it had been the policy of the United States of America to overthrow the government of Iraq since 1998.

 

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

 

 

!

 

14 posted on 08/15/2005 7:12:41 PM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Liberals believe common sense facts are open to debate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven
Mrs. Sheehan’s son died a hero’s death trying to rescue his fellow soldiers from an ambush in Sadr City.

Casey Sheehan was representative of the best of us. His mother is the exact opposite. Without her blather I might not have known as much about this man as I do now. What a great guy and what a great American. You can be your own person, no matter who or what your parents are. Casey is proof of that. God will bless him and I will pray for the repose of his soul with thanks and praise.

15 posted on 08/15/2005 7:16:23 PM PDT by Bahbah (Air America: kids-for-kilowatts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; All
According to a June 2004 article in thereporter.com of Vacaville, Ca. "the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military."

sheehan has openly and repeatedly declared her refusal to pay her taxes in 2004, and I, for one, am curious to know if there is some way to find out exactly how much it cost the tax payers for the sheehan's little jaunt to Ft Lewis, Washington to meet with President Bush (at his request, mind you).

16 posted on 08/15/2005 7:18:30 PM PDT by Zacs Mom (Proud wife of a Marine! ... and purveyor of "rampant, unedited dialogue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
Great research...thanks HG
dave
17 posted on 08/15/2005 7:20:23 PM PDT by evad ( PC KILLS..and so do liberal judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

excellent posts gentlemen...to bad we don't own a TV station or a newspaper


18 posted on 08/15/2005 7:20:53 PM PDT by Youngman442002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Sorry...I am very worked up about this.

You are not alone. Lots of company. Darrell Ankarlo is right. We won't, can't, let Viet Nam happen again. It's so hard. We have elected representatives with nothing but their careers on their radar screens. Who cares about this country? I guess it's us.

19 posted on 08/15/2005 7:23:28 PM PDT by Bahbah (Air America: kids-for-kilowatts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven

Excellent


20 posted on 08/15/2005 7:24:11 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson