Sure Cindy, It's Only Been About Your Son - Let's Keep That 15 Minutes Going....

[GotZoom]

Cindy Sheehan may have ended her summer vigil at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, but she is taking her anti-war activism to colleges/universities by participating in public speaking and public programs across the nation.

New York, NY (PRWEB via PR Web Direct) September 14, 2005 -- There are moments in history when the courageous actions of one individual act to galvanize a movement – whether for civil rights, women's rights, pro-democracy, or against a war.

The summer of 2005 will forever be remembered with one mother's vigil for her lost son at President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cindy Sheehan has re-energized the nation's anti-war movement with her unflagging desire to meet with the president to ask: “What is the noble cause for which my son died in Iraq?”

Cindy Sheehan has become a national symbol of the powerless confronting the powerful, of a mother mourning the loss of her child and seeking answers from the nation's commander-in-chief, the man who made the case for the war in which her son lost his life.

Sheehan's activism has not ended with the president returning to Washington after his vacation. She is now involved in public speaking to groups around the country: one mother with one voice and one mission – to find a way to bring our troops home and spare other parents the grief of losing a child in an unjust war.

For additional information on Cindy Sheehan and her public speaking availability, visit www.speakingmatters.org.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/9/prweb284918.htm

------

You couldn't pay ME to let her speak somewhere.

 

[ProudDem]

So are you saying that once someone starts a cause, it cannot be expanded at all?

I support her cause to some extent, and I love that she has reminded people that this war is bogus.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So are you saying that once someone starts a cause, it cannot be expanded at all?

I support her cause to some extent, and I love that she has reminded people that this war is bogus.

I support her cause too. She illustrates just how mindless, misguided and treasonous leftist ideologues are these days. Go Cindy, Poster Girl for Lib Stupidity!

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

 

[ProudDem]

I support her cause too. She illustrates just how mindless, misguided and treasonous leftist ideologues are these days. Go Cindy, Poster Girl for Lib Stupidity!

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

Is that the best you can come up with? :rotflmao:

 

[Avatar4321]

Is that the best you can come up with? :rotflmao:

Why does he have to come up with anything better than the truth? The fact is she is clearly illustrating how ridiculous the anti war extremists in this country are. I mean the woman is using her son's death for political purposes. And the Anti war left is exploiting her for everything they can get.

Problem is the left hasnt given anyone any reason to oppose the war other than "We hate Bush"

 

[ProudDem]

Why does he have to come up with anything better than the truth? The fact is she is clearly illustrating how ridiculous the anti war extremists in this country are. I mean the woman is using her son's death for political purposes. And the Anti war left is exploiting her for everything they can get.

How is NOT supporting the war "ridiculous"? Are you saying that people can have only one opinion about this issue? If so, puleeze.

Problem is the left hasnt given anyone any reason to oppose the war other than "We hate Bush"

Now that's funny. I guess our being told that Iraq had WMDs and that it was an imminent threat to us, when, in fact, it had no WMDs, it had not threatened us, nor was there any connection between September 11th and Iraq, aren't valid reasons. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

 

[dilloduck]

How is NOT supporting the war "ridiculous"? Are you saying that people can have only one opinion about this issue? If so, puleeze.



Now that's funny. I guess our being told that Iraq had WMDs and that it was an imminent threat to us, when, in fact, it had no WMDs, it had not threatened us, nor was there any connection between September 11th and Iraq, aren't valid reasons. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

So in your mind after we attacked Afghanistan the war on terror was over? Obsess about the mistakes in our planning prior to invading all you want but the fact is that we are now fighting and killing and terrorists, al-quaeda and islamo-facism in Iraq.
If you are angry about the lies we are told by our government that we are expected to believe, I'm sure that folks can come up with a million for you.
Democrats are pissed off by republican lies and Republicans are pissed at the lies of the democrats. We should ALL be pissed at any lie told to us by our government. Not just take turns depending on whose party is in power.

 

[Avatar4321]

How is NOT supporting the war "ridiculous"? Are you saying that people can have only one opinion about this issue? If so, puleeze.

Not supporting the war is ridiculous because doing nothing has never made us safer. These people are at war with us. We either acknowledge that and fight back, or we do nothing and wait for them to attack again. If you think they are suddenly going to stop if we dont respond then you are still living in the fantasy land that was the 1990s.

Now that's funny. I guess our being told that Iraq had WMDs and that it was an imminent threat to us, when, in fact, it had no WMDs, it had not threatened us, nor was there any connection between September 11th and Iraq, aren't valid reasons. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

I hate when liberals can't even get the reasons straight. Why we went in wasn't that complicated.

Once again WMDs was just one of many reasons we went in. Saddam has a history of using WMDs. We even found some. We also found plans to make more and weapons projects, including nuclear weapons. The dutch found nuclear material, called yellow cake, smuggled out of Iraq in scrap metal. Jordan captured a number of Syrian terrorists last year smuggling WMDs into Jordan.

At no time did the President ever say that Iraq was an iminent threat. It was John Kerry and John Edwards who were saying Iraq was an iminent threat. The President said that if we waited for it to become an iminenet threat, it would be too late. Read the State of the Union before the war if you disbelieve me.

And if you still cant figure out how 911 is connected to Iraq, you are just a complete moron here. It really isn't that difficult. You see terrorists attacked us on 911. We in turn declared a war on terrorism and any nations that supported terrorism. Saddam supports terrorism. In fact, he has specific ties to Osama Bin Laden. He offered Osama a place of refuge in Iraq. If you are unaware of that read the 911 commission report sometime. Are these concepts that difficult to understand?

Why is it you libs seem to live in some alternate reality where you can pretend as though none of these facts exist? If you were at all thinking rationally you wouldn't be critisizing the President claiming Iraq had no WMDs. You would be critisizing him for not having found the WMDs that we know were there. (Which we would likely have found if you libs hadnt wasted about a year holding up the liberation of Iraq)

It must be nice living in the fantasy world you are in. One of these days youll realize what truly happened on 911 was a wake up call. We live in a dangerous world. and its not time to be cowardly and flee from it. We need to face evil in this world or it will overcome us.

 

[Avatar4321]

So in your mind after we attacked Afghanistan the war on terror was over? Obsess about the mistakes in our planning prior to invading all you want but the fact is that we are now fighting and killing and terrorists, al-quaeda and islamo-facism in Iraq.
If you are angry about the lies we are told by our government that we are expected to believe, I'm sure that folks can come up with a million for you.
Democrats are pissed off by republican lies and Republicans are pissed at the lies of the democrats. We should ALL be pissed at any lie told to us by our government. Not just take turns depending on whose party is in power.

Yeah, maybe one of these days the libs will actually stop yelling "He lied!" and actually try to prove a single lie. Course ive been waiting for that for years. Heck, im still waiting for someone to tell me what Clinton did that was so excellent.

 

[theim]

I think its just funny how she knows her 15 minutes are up, polls show 80% don't care about her, and she's just scrambling to New Orleans, Micheal Moore, anywhere to get back in the camera. Funny, and sad.

 

[ProudDem]

So in your mind after we attacked Afghanistan the war on terror was over? Obsess about the mistakes in our planning prior to invading all you want but the fact is that we are now fighting and killing and terrorists, al-quaeda and islamo-facism in Iraq.
If you are angry about the lies we are told by our government that we are expected to believe, I'm sure that folks can come up with a million for you.
Democrats are pissed off by republican lies and Republicans are pissed at the lies of the democrats. We should ALL be pissed at any lie told to us by our government. Not just take turns depending on whose party is in power.

Dilloduck, are you saying that because democrats have lied, I cannot be disgusted by the lies that a republican told to us? That is ridiculous! We have lost 2000 soldiers, and have 10,000 soldiers who have been maimed. And you're telling me that because democrats have lied to us that somehow the lie that Bush told us is minimized? You know what this tells me? That you have no idea what it's like for these soldiers. I work for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, and I have gone to Walter Reed to see these soldiers. It is heartbreaking to see those that have survived and will forever be disabled. Your argument is truly despicable to me. (This is not to say I am angry with you--just your arugment.)

Oh sure, we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Too bad they weren't there until WE invaded Iraq. And you want to call invading Iraq the war on terrorism? Puleeze. I am so glad you follow your leader blindly and don't question what he says.

I fully supported our going into Afghanistan since that's who was harboring bin Laden. Was the war on terrorism over then? Well since we haven't gotten bin Laden, I don't think that it's over THERE. However, when did Iraq attack us? When did it threaten to attack us? Don't answer those questions because I already know the answers.

 

[Avatar4321]

Dilloduck, are you saying that because democrats have lied, I cannot be disgusted by the lies that a republican told to us? That is ridiculous! We have lost 2000 soldiers, and have 10,000 soldiers who have been maimed. And you're telling me that because democrats have lied to us that somehow the lie that Bush told us is minimized? You know what this tells me? That you have no idea what it's like for these soldiers. I work for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, and I have gone to Walter Reed to see these soldiers. It is heartbreaking to see those that have survived and will forever be disabled. Your argument is truly despicable to me. (This is not to say I am angry with you--just your arugment.)

Oh sure, we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Too bad they weren't there until WE invaded Iraq. And you want to call invading Iraq the war on terrorism? Puleeze. I am so glad you follow your leader blindly and don't question what he says.

I fully supported our going into Afghanistan since that's who was harboring bin Laden. Was the war on terrorism over then? Well since we haven't gotten bin Laden, I don't think that it's over THERE. However, when did Iraq attack us? When did it threaten to attack us? Don't answer those questions because I already know the answers.

You seriously arent one to talk about blindly following leaders.

1)You have yet to prove that Republicans have lied about anything
2)You seem completely ignorant of Saddam's dealings with terrorism.
3)You seem to think that the war on terrorism is a war against one person, Osama Bin Laden, rather than what it actually claims to be, a war on terrorism.
4)You seem to want to pretend that the terrorists weren't in Iraq. Which is the dumbest argument I've seen in a while. I mean the terrorists were in Florida and New York. They are supposedly in every nation. Yet for some odd reason they weren't in Iraq, despite the fact we know Saddam had dealings with various terrorist groups and funded them. Seriously how dumb do you think we are?

Besides, even if the terrorists werent there to begin with, they certainly are now. are you conceding that Iraq is now a perfectly just war because the terrorists are there now? Either way the President had a pretty sound plan. Take out Saddam who supported terror, and if by some odd chance that Iraq seems to be a fluke and no terrorists are there we bring terrorists from all nations together in Iraq so we can kill them all in one spot. Liberating Iraq brought the terrorists out of hiding and put them all in one place. Sounds like a pretty darn good stragety to me.

 

[dilloduck]

Dilloduck, are you saying that because democrats have lied, I cannot be disgusted by the lies that a republican told to us? That is ridiculous! We have lost 2000 soldiers, and have 10,000 soldiers who have been maimed. And you're telling me that because democrats have lied to us that somehow the lie that Bush told us is minimized? You know what this tells me? That you have no idea what it's like for these soldiers. I work for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, and I have gone to Walter Reed to see these soldiers. It is heartbreaking to see those that have survived and will forever be disabled. Your argument is truly despicable to me. (This is not to say I am angry with you--just your arugment.)

Oh sure, we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Too bad they weren't there until WE invaded Iraq. And you want to call invading Iraq the war on terrorism? Puleeze. I am so glad you follow your leader blindly and don't question what he says.

I fully supported our going into Afghanistan since that's who was harboring bin Laden. Was the war on terrorism over then? Well since we haven't gotten bin Laden, I don't think that it's over THERE. However, when did Iraq attack us? When did it threaten to attack us? Don't answer those questions because I already know the answers.

I have no control over what you want to be pissed at---all I'm saying is that you seem to think going to Iraq is a lie that should somehow be worse than all the rest of the lies ? Why is that. Are we back to the old "some lies are not as bad as others" argument?

Blindly follow my leader??? read !!!
I have posts all over the place about some dumbass decisions he has made. Lose the sheep analogy---just becuase people agreee with him on some issues does NOT mean it's done without prior analysis or weighing the facts.

 

[ProudDem]

I have no control over what you want to be pissed at---all I'm saying is that you seem to think going to Iraq is a lie that should somehow be worse than all the rest of the lies ? Why is that. Are we back to the old "some lies are not as bad as others" argument?

I just don't see how you think that because there have been other lies that this lie about Iraq is no different. I stand by what I said. You have no idea the impact of that this lie has had on people's lives. Thus, I give your thoughts on this topic no probative value.

And I know you have no control over my feelings. I was telling you that just because I am bothered by what you wrote does not mean I will pout and ignore you. That's it.

Blindly follow my leader??? read !!!
I have posts all over the place about some dumbass decisions he has made. Lose the sheep analogy---just becuase people agreee with him on some issues does NOT mean it's done without prior analysis or weighing the facts.

I meant you were blindly following your leader on this issue. Sorry, but "we're fighting the war on terrorism" in Iraq is a joke. JMO

 

[dilloduck]

I just don't see how you think that because there have been other lies that this lie about Iraq is no different. I stand by what I said. You have no idea the impact of that this lie has had on people's lives. Thus, I give your thoughts on this topic no probative value.

And I know you have no control over my feelings. I was telling you that just because I am bothered by what you wrote does not mean I will pout and ignore you. That's it.



I meant you were blindly following your leader on this issue. Sorry, but "we're fighting the war on terrorism" in Iraq is a joke. JMO

And I was trying to find out why you thought this "lie" is so special so I guess we shall have to call it a Mexican stand-off or whatever word you would prefer to use to describe it.
Saying I have no idea how the fighting in Iraq affects people lies is baseless, presumtuous and assuming thus I give your assessment of my personal awareness a big
Again--if you think that my allegiance Bush is the only reason I agree with the invasion of Iraq, you are sorely mistaken. Tell the Al-Qaeda fighters and leaders in Iraq that you think this is all a joke. Even they would laugh at your ignorance on these matters but maybe they are relying on people like you to get the US to leave so thier job at terrorizing will become much easier.

 

[Gunny]

Dilloduck, are you saying that because democrats have lied, I cannot be disgusted by the lies that a republican told to us? That is ridiculous! We have lost 2000 soldiers, and have 10,000 soldiers who have been maimed. And you're telling me that because democrats have lied to us that somehow the lie that Bush told us is minimized? You know what this tells me? That you have no idea what it's like for these soldiers. I work for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, and I have gone to Walter Reed to see these soldiers. It is heartbreaking to see those that have survived and will forever be disabled. Your argument is truly despicable to me. (This is not to say I am angry with you--just your arugment.)

Oh sure, we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Too bad they weren't there until WE invaded Iraq. And you want to call invading Iraq the war on terrorism? Puleeze. I am so glad you follow your leader blindly and don't question what he says.

I fully supported our going into Afghanistan since that's who was harboring bin Laden. Was the war on terrorism over then? Well since we haven't gotten bin Laden, I don't think that it's over THERE. However, when did Iraq attack us? When did it threaten to attack us? Don't answer those questions because I already know the answers.

First. Bush didn't lie. Again. ad nauseum. He presented the facts that were presented to him. That he presented them in a light favorable to his cause does not make it a lie, nor does it make him any different than any other human being capable of thought.

Second, last I checked, the military is an all-volunteer military. No one was forced to join. The purpose of the military is to fight wars. War is ugly and people get hurt, but all who participate are affected one way or another.

Point is, the military is not a job opportunity with excellent benefits without a corresponding risk. I have sympathy for those who are hurt because they are hurt, not because their bubble got burst on their one-way, take-but-don't-give relationship with the US military. It's all spelled out in black and white, simple English in your enlistment papers.

I do not understand the liberal mindset that the military should be a free ride through life without consequence. NOTHING is free.

 

[Gunny]

I just don't see how you think that because there have been other lies that this lie about Iraq is no different. I stand by what I said. You have no idea the impact of that this lie has had on people's lives. Thus, I give your thoughts on this topic no probative value.

I have a pretty good idea of the impact of this war on peoples' lives. And speaking of probative value, when you get a rational, fact-based argument other than "Bush lied," yours might gain some in that department.
And I know you have no control over my feelings. I was telling you that just because I am bothered by what you wrote does not mean I will pout and ignore you. That's it.



I meant you were blindly following your leader on this issue. Sorry, but "we're fighting the war on terrorism" in Iraq is a joke. JMO

What is a joke is people ignoring the fact that we ARE fighting a war against terrorism, and it isn't going to just go away if you turn your back to it. That worked really well for Clinton .... the end result being 9/11.

I guess the part where radical Islam wants our society, Nation, and YOU dead is a joke.

When you accuse someone of blindly following a leader, one should not be posting the same, worn-out, blatantly untrue myths perpetuated by the left.

 

[ProudDem]

You seriously arent one to talk about blindly following leaders.

1)You have yet to prove that Republicans have lied about anything

I probably should have used a better word. I do not think that Bush intentionally lied, but I believe the administration exaggerated evidence. No one can convince me otherwise, so I would recommend no one trying to prove that there was no exaggeration of the facts.

2)You seem completely ignorant of Saddam's dealings with terrorism.

What, the fact that he killed his own people? Am I supposed to care about that? I don't, as cold as that sounds. Iraq was not a threat to us, and they had made no threat. In my heart, I believe that Bush went in to finish the job his dad did not. Plus, Saddam Hussein had attempted to assassinate his father. I would hate anyone who attempted to do that to my father. But that was his battle--not the United States's battle.

3)You seem to think that the war on terrorism is a war against one person, Osama Bin Laden, rather than what it actually claims to be, a war on terrorism.

The war started with September 11th, which was Al Qaeda. Don't even tell me that because Al Qaeda is in Iraq NOW that we're fighting the war on terrorism. Sorry, but Al Qaeda wasn't there prior to our invasion. Our invasion of Iraq was based upon there being WMDs, which could be used against us. Remember Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Cheney all telling us that there could be a mushroom cloud? Yeah, right. The reasons for our invading Iraq have changed since we got there. How repulsive.

4)You seem to want to pretend that the terrorists weren't in Iraq. Which is the dumbest argument I've seen in a while. I mean the terrorists were in Florida and New York. They are supposedly in every nation. Yet for some odd reason they weren't in Iraq, despite the fact we know Saddam had dealings with various terrorist groups and funded them. Seriously how dumb do you think we are?

See above. Maybe there were terrorists in Iraq, but had those terrorists attacked us or threatened to attack us? NOPE.

Besides, even if the terrorists werent there to begin with, they certainly are now. are you conceding that Iraq is now a perfectly just war because the terrorists are there now? Either way the President had a pretty sound plan. Take out Saddam who supported terror, and if by some odd chance that Iraq seems to be a fluke and no terrorists are there we bring terrorists from all nations together in Iraq so we can kill them all in one spot. Liberating Iraq brought the terrorists out of hiding and put them all in one place. Sounds like a pretty darn good stragety to me.

Whatever.

 

[Avatar4321]

NOTHING is free.

Amen brother.

 

[ProudDem]

First. Bush didn't lie. Again. ad nauseum. He presented the facts that were presented to him. That he presented them in a light favorable to his cause does not make it a lie, nor does it make him any different than any other human being capable of thought.

Neither you nor I can prove whether Bush lied or not, unless you're able to get into his head and know what he was thinking when he told us how we could be hit with a mushroom cloud). I don't think he lied, but I believe he exaggerated facts, which is essentially just as bad. Regardless, this war has caused substantial losses for us and for Iraqis.

Second, last I checked, the military is an all-volunteer military. No one was forced to join. The purpose of the military is to fight wars. War is ugly and people get hurt, but all who participate are affected one way or another.

Point is, the military is not a job opportunity with excellent benefits without a corresponding risk. I have sympathy for those who are hurt because they are hurt, not because their bubble got burst on their one-way, take-but-don't-give relationship with the US military. It's all spelled out in black and white, simple English in your enlistment papers.

I do not understand the liberal mindset that the military should be a free ride through life without consequence. NOTHING is free.

So are you saying that I have sympathy because of some burst bubble? I am fully aware that the military is an all-volunteer military. However, our president is supposed to use his right as Commander in Chief in a responsible manner. He did not send enough troops in there to begin with, and while soldiers are dying in Iraq, at a dinner at the White House, he thinks he's cute by showing slides of him looking under his desk for the WMDs. He has the biggest Inaugration celebration that any president has had while soldiers are dying. Wow, he's a great guy.

He has abused his right as Commander in Chief, and for that, I will never forgive him. And just because someone volunteers for to do something doesn't mean that we can't be disgusted when someone abuses that volunteer's willingness to serve his country.