Stars & Stripes reported Cindy Sheehan.... is scheduled to bring her anti-war message to U.S. military installations in Germany next month. “[We’ve already heard] that Cindy Sheehan is like Hanoi Jane [Fonda] coming here,” said Elsa Rassbach, an event organizer with American Voices Abroad, which is supporting Sheehan’s trip.
This nut job will go anywhere if someone pays her way. But if she wants to protest the war in Iraq, why does she not go to Iraq?.... according to an event flier. “Germany has the power to stop the further use of U.S. bases in Germany for illegal wars and criminal methods of warfare — the power and the right to just say no!”
I actually think we have WAY too many bases in Germany. It might be useful to have one or two, to stage equipment at, and also one or two in various other countries, just in case some government decides to do what Cindy is asking them, and seeks to block our access to our equipment, but we should have most of our Armed Forces back in this country, protecting our borders, particularly the southern one, although I think we could use some help in the the northern one as wellSweetness & Light blogged Mother Sheehan has scored another all expenses paid European vacation, this time to France and Germany.... Of course if Mother Sheehan had been around 65 years ago she would have to be giving her rants in German.
Hopefully she will address all those soldiers in Germany, who Cindy claimed last April are taken there to die to lower the Iraq casualty list:
People tell you 1,524 American soldiers [have died]. But that is only the soldiers who die in country. If they get one foot on the helicopter, or they die at Walter Reed, or Wiesbaden, Germany–they’re not counted. The low estimate for our own losses is 4,000.Ace of Spades blogged Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not sure if the right to free speech embraces inciting foreign nations against us. I thought free speech was supposed to enable Americans to persuade other Americans of the soundness of their position, not to encourage foreign powers to act against our democratically-decided policies. If she wants to protest the war in Iraq, shouldn't she, like, go to Iraq? Just sayin'.
Anchoress blogged Is this, finally, treason? Treason is a strong word. Read what Mrs. Sheehan is up to. Is it? I don’t know. Someone must.
4 comments:
Sheehan is about free speech. Her son was killed, she disagrees with the war and is saying so...that's the facts Jack. She's an American and she can voice her dissent 'til the cows come in.
We really have to get into the case of Dubya and this Republican administration to discuss treason and other impeachable activity.
Remember his "Top Gun" moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln? And his famous taunt — "Bring 'em on" — to the insurgents in Iraq? His breathtaking arrogance is exceeded only by his incompetence. And that's the real problem. That's where you'll find the mind-boggling destructiveness of this regime, in its incompetence.
Fantasy may be in fashion. Reality may have been shoved into the shadows on Mr. Bush's watch. But the plain truth is that he is the worst president in memory, and one of the worst of all time
Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for George H. W. Bush, counseled against the occupation of Iraq at the end of the first gulf war. As recounted in a New Yorker article last fall, he said, "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile land. Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out?"
George W. Bush had no such concerns. In fact, he joked about his failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Like a frat boy making cracks about a bad bet on a football game, Mr. Bush displayed what he felt was a hilarious set of photos during a spoof that he performed at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association in March 2004.
The photos showed the president peering behind curtains and looking under furniture in the Oval Office for the missing weapons. Mr. Bush offered mock captions for the photos, saying, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere." And, "Nope, no weapons over there, maybe under here."
The fiasco in Iraq and the president's response to the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe were Mr. Bush's two most spectacular foul-ups. There have been many others. The president's new Medicare prescription drug program has been a monumental embarrassment, leaving some of the most vulnerable members of our society without essential medication. Prominent members of the president's own party are balking at the heavy hand of his No Child Left Behind law, which was supposed to radically upgrade the quality of public education.
The Constitution? Civil liberties?
Whatever your political beliefs, that incompetence in high places can have devastating consequences.
Sheehan is about free speech.
She has nothing to do with free speech. She is using free speech, but nothing she is doing attempts to preserve free speech for others.
Her son was killed,
And he would be very ashamed of what she is doing, if he was still with us.
she disagrees with the war and is saying so...that's the facts Jack. She's an American and she can voice her dissent 'til the cows come in.
I never suggested she should not voice her dissent, but I am getting a little tired of her same old story. And she is being taken advantage of by the various groups that are paying her way around the world.
We really have to get into the case of Dubya and this Republican administration to discuss treason and other impeachable activity.
Others may agree, but I dont see treason by either of them. I do see treason on the part of whoever leaked the NSA stuff, and perhaps the NYT reporters and editors.
Remember his "Top Gun" moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln?
Yes, and he was right, Major operations, especially on the part of the navy, was over. There were no major air strikes from ships after that point.
And his famous taunt — "Bring 'em on" — to the insurgents in Iraq?
Better than cringing in fear of the Islamoterrorists.
His breathtaking arrogance is exceeded only by his incompetence. And that's the real problem. That's where you'll find the mind-boggling destructiveness of this regime, in its incompetence.
No army ever moved as fast as ours did in its march to Baghdad, and in just a few years two different countries have been freed from opressive governments, have written and approved constitutions, and democraticly elected their own governments.
Fantasy may be in fashion. Reality may have been shoved into the shadows on Mr. Bush's watch. But the plain truth is that he is the worst president in memory, and one of the worst of all time
I disagree. I believe he is one of the best. It will take a while for enough to realize it, but in 25 years his face will be on Mt Rushmore.
Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for George H. W. Bush, counseled against the occupation of Iraq at the end of the first gulf war.
What would you expect? If he favored it, then why didn't he urge Bush 41 to move into Baghdad.
As recounted in a New Yorker article last fall, he said, "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile land. Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out?"
George W. Bush had no such concerns. In fact, he joked about his failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Like a frat boy making cracks about a bad bet on a football game, Mr. Bush displayed what he felt was a hilarious set of photos during a spoof that he performed at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association in March 2004.
The photos showed the president peering behind curtains and looking under furniture in the Oval Office for the missing weapons. Mr. Bush offered mock captions for the photos, saying, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere." And, "Nope, no weapons over there, maybe under here."
He needs to look in Syria.
The fiasco in Iraq and the president's response to the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe were Mr. Bush's two most spectacular foul-ups. There have been many others. The president's new Medicare prescription drug program has been a monumental embarrassment, leaving some of the most vulnerable members of our society without essential medication.
More have it than had it earlier, but I wish they had not passed what they did.
Prominent members of the president's own party are balking at the heavy hand of his No Child Left Behind law, which was supposed to radically upgrade the quality of public education.
I like the idea of NCLB. If you want the Feds to give money for education, you need to prove you are improving education.
The Constitution? Civil liberties?
Whatever your political beliefs, that incompetence in high places can have devastating consequences.
It certain can, but in the case of the Bush administration I believe he has done a very good job.
Of course you think Dubya's doing a good job...you voted for him.
However, as history unfolds, it is becoming more and more difficult for apologists to apologize for failure after failure...all reflecting incometence.
In just this past week, conservative legend William F. Buckley Jr. and neoconservative icon Francis Fukuyama have joined the swelling ranks of Americans judging George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq a disaster.
“One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed,” Buckley wrote at National Review Online on Feb. 24, adding that the challenge now facing Bush and his top advisers is how to cope with the reality of that failure.
“Within their own counsels, different plans have to be made,” Buckley wrote after a week of bloody sectarian violence in Iraq. “And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat.”
Fukuyama, a leading neoconservative theorist, went further citing not just the disaster in Iraq but the catastrophe enveloping Bush’s broader strategy of preemptive military American interventions, waged unilaterally when necessary.
“The so-called Bush Doctrine that set the framework for the administration’s first term is now in shambles,” Fukuyama wrote Feb. 19 in The New York Times Magazine.
While those Americans who always opposed the Iraq War may see this unseemly scramble of Bush’s former allies as a classic case of rats deserting a sinking ship, the loss of these two prominent thinkers of the Right mark a turning point in the political battle over the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
If Bush can’t hold William F. Buckley Jr. – and if even the ranks of the neocons are starting to crack – Bush may soon be confronted with a hard choice of either acknowledging his errors or tightening his authoritarian control of the United States.
Bush picked his belligerent course in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington. Though the world had rallied to America’s side – offering both sympathy and cooperation in fighting terrorism – Bush chose to issue ultimatums.
Bush famously told other nations that they were either “with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Vowing to “rid the world of evil,” he made clear he would brush aside any restrictions on his actions, including the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
Europeans were soon protesting Bush’s treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Muslims were voicing growing hatred for the United States. Though Bush's tough actions were popular with his base, they played poorly abroad.
Bush spelled out his broader strategy in a speech at West Point on June 1, 2002. He asserted a unilateral U.S. right to overthrow any government in the world that is deemed a threat to American security, a position so sweeping it lacked historical precedent.
“If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long,” Bush said in describing what soon became known as the “Bush Doctrine.”
However, beyond the enormous sacrifices of blood, money and freedom that this plan entails, there is another problem: the strategy offers no guarantee of greater security for Americans and runs the risk of deepening the pool of hatred against the United States.
Bush’s wishful thinking (also known as his foreign policy)is running into trouble on multiple fronts.
A fierce resistance emerged in Iraq, claiming the lives of hundreds – and then thousands – of U.S. soldiers who couldn’t quell the violence. Instead of contributing to peace, the Iraqi elections deepened the country’s sectarian divisions – empowering the Shiite majority while alienating the Sunni minority.
Surging anti-Americanism caused other Middle East elections to have the opposite results from what Bush’s neoconservatives predicted. Instead of breeding moderation, elections in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran and the Palestinian Authority saw gains by Islamic extremists, including a surprise victory by the militant group Hamas in Palestine.
The United States also has seen its international reputation devastated by reports of abuse and torture in U.S.-run detention centers.
Rather than the all-powerful nation that the neocons wanted to project, the United States revealed the limitations of its military might and the incompetence of its administrative follow-through.
Why, he's doing at least a good a job as his crony appointee at FEMA.."Brownie"...a heck of a job indeed
Your response is too long to address each point, but obviously I disagree. The fact that a couple of Republicans take issue with him from time to time does not mean they do so all of the time. Sometimes I disagree with him on some points (I favor a wall and staging the military on our southern (and perhaps northern) border.
Post a Comment