American Spectator : Cindy Sheehan Is Right

American Spectator ^ | August 19, 2009 | Matthew Vadum

[sportutegrl]

NAACP is not a 'person of color' group. It is an anti-Republican group.

NOW is not a feminist group. It is an anti-Republican group.

AARP is not a older people group. It is an anti-Republican group.

NEA is not a teacher's rights group. . . .

AMA . . .

ABA . . .

. . .?

[70times7]

From the article:
York shared his thesis with antiwar activist Sheehan that the antiwar movement has slipped into hibernation because President Bush left office, and she was honest enough to admit she agreed with him.

Sheehan responded
While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the DailyKos, I have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with the Republicans. That's why I left the party in May 2007 and that's why I ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.

So let me see if I understand correctly, this knucklehead was protesting Bush rather than the war. Now that Dims are in power she has stopped protesting even though she claims to understand that Dims are equally responsible for a war that continues. So she is running against Pelosi (in an obvious attempt to increase her kook status).

OK! Can't get any clearer a logic stream that that!

"Useful idiot" is a gross understatement. She's a flippin' moron.

[Whuzyerdaddi]

We gave Iraq freedom? They just passed a law there. You can’t smoke in public. That is freedom? Wait till NWO gives them all the laws they gave us. Freedom no more.

[ari-freedom]

“I opposed GWB’s nation building policy.”

I didn’t. A strong and stable Iraq is of strategic importance to us and you don’t get it by bombing the crap out of it and running away. I was for nation building of japan and germany after WW2 as well.

The problem with Clinton’s nation building was that he tried to do nation building in all kinds of dinky countries like Haiti and while also cutting spending on defense.

[Stoat]

Would it be fair to say that just as the ‘anti-war’ movement of the Iraq era was not an antiwar movement at all but in reality was an anti-Bush/ Republicans movement, that the “anti-war” movement of the Vietnam era was in reality an ‘anti-draft’ movement, since I understand that all of the ‘major’ protests which were ostensibly against the war stopped when the draft was ended, even though the war was still going on and went on for some time after the draft ended? Please correct me if my timeline or info is incorrect, thanks :-)

[ari-freedom]

“BTW, I was against it for 2 reasons: we would fail because the left and the media would actively go against it “

you’d be opposed to going to war because you’re concerned about what the left and the media would say? Screw them and thank G-d we had REAL leaders like Reagan and W Bush who weren’t afraid to go after the “evil empire” and the “axis of evil.”

[ari-freedom]

“We gave Iraq freedom? They just passed a law there. You can’t smoke in public. That is freedom? Wait till NWO gives them all the laws they gave us. Freedom no more.”

saddam used to put political opponents into wood chippers and gassed the kurds. Al qaeda would take their prisoners and slowly decapitate them with knives.

[fatez]

Yep, hate to see our boys blood spilt without a full blown reason which should trigger a declaration of war.

[fatez]

Makes you feel better, yes, I was against it. I am tired of tearing this country apart and not going toe to toe with the domestic opposition. I knew the pubbies and the President would eventually waffle, which they did. If you are going to go to war, unleash it. Instead Bush got up there and pretty much made it a mopping up exercise. The selling of the war is just as important as executing it. By the way, Reagan waffled to, I remember him with the Marine barracks bombing, I should know, my unit relieved the unit that was bombed, and quite a few my buddies thought he waffled.