Yep, the nut-case, flipped out wifey. Lost her son in the war and went around the bend. Flipped out, went crazy. You know how those womenare. What's a guy to do with them?
At which point he told her something that she has now learned was a bald-faced lie. She now would like an explanation as to why her President, her dead son's former commander-in-chief lied to her about the reason her son is dead.
He led her son to his death and she wants to know why he lied to her about the reason he did so.
He led her son to his death and she wants to know why he lied to her about the reason he did so.
Perhaps he just took the word of ex-president Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Bob Graham, etc.
Perhaps he just took the word of ex-president Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Bob Graham, etc.
Well, then he fucking needs to say that. This administration has changed their story on why so many times it's hard to keep track of which reason he's peddling this week.
BTW, what you descibe above is called "passing the buck". It certainly doesn't describe anything that could remotely be thought of as a "last resort", which is of course when people generally feel troops shoud be commited. And you wanna show me where those people all recommended to Bush that he invade Iraq?
BTW, what you descibe above is called "passing the buck".
No, it is called pointing out the hypocrisy we now see from those who are suddenly against the war.
It certainly doesn't describe anything that could remotely be thought of as a "last resort", which is of course when people generally feel troops shoud be commited.
You mean like waiting for them to fly into our buildings? That worked so well under Clinton didn't it?
And you wanna show me where those people all recommended to Bush that he invade Iraq?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Â Â President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Â Â President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Â Â Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."Â Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Â Â Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Â Â Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Â Â Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Â Â Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."   Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Â Â Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Â Â Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
Not all ask for an invasion, but they do provide support for the idea that Saddam had/wanted dangerous weapons that the above also believed would threaten us and our allies. Most quotes were after Clinton left the White House, so the premise that Clinton lobbing a few missiles at him took care of the whole problem is false. Surely they saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusions as our president did.
Why does nobody take these people to task for "lieing" to the president and the American people? Why doesn't this Sheehan lady camp outside of Clinton's houwe or John Kerry's house or any of the others on the list for "lieing" as well? Wouldn't have anything to do with politics would it?
"Then you just make an idiot of yourself as well. Then they say "Look at that spineless bastard, he'll do anything she says"'
People are going to think what they're going to think. If he's more concerned about what people think of him then the welfare of his wife, then, I'd say he's doing what suits him best.
Perhaps President Bush should meet this lady...again...in public...with women who suffered under Saddam...telling their stories...then asking Mrs. Sheehan what she wants to know about the war. That would be an interesting news conference.
Do you expect fundamentalist Muslims, perhaps the Shiites now in power, to do better?
I believe in giving them a chance.
Do you believe that they are just a bunch of crazy "ragheads" or something that is incapable of self-governing? If so, who should govern them and lead them down the straight and narrow?
You think that if a country develops WMDs and even actually has them and has shown that they will even invade another country that has not attacked them, it is okay for someone to invade them?
You mean like waiting for them to fly into our buildings?
so, you are saying that Iran should attack us asap instead of waiting for us to bomb them, which they have every reason to believe we will. We have WMDs and are developing more or them all the time. We have already invaded thier neighbor. The advice you give them is to attack us as soon as possible, right? Same thing for North Korea. Same thing for (fill in the blank), right?
Seems to me losing a child would be enough of a strain on any marriage. From what I understand, the rest or much of the family disagrees with her. He did re-up and it was his decision, he was an adult. Is it tragic? Absolutely. The father might just feel that his son would have possibly disagreed with his Mom. Or at the least doesn't agree with choosing that way to honor his son. But he of course is instantly the bad guy. Nope she had nothing to do with it. On top of having to bury your son, inviting the national media into your life during a horrible time might have just been too much for him.
Oh so it's not Casey's family? Maybe the father disagrees too.
"Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks àCherie
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins
I'm not just saying this because it's Bush. It's silly to expect this of anyone holding the office of President.
The success or failure of the venture will determine whether it's silly or not.
Not you.
She "lost" her husband long before this debacle. This is the icing on the cake. I'm sure she's flipped out many times before.
Which means she needed him in her corner all the more.
He didn't have to agree with her, just stand with her. That's what real men do.
Sure, YOU can take living with a nut case for 25 years, St. Rick? Obviously enough is enough for him.
Yep, the nut-case, flipped out wifey. Lost her son in the war and went around the bend. Flipped out, went crazy. You know how those womenare. What's a guy to do with them?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no. Try and keep up. This is the icing on the cake for 25 previous years of wigouts.
At which point he told her something that she has now learned was a bald-faced lie. She now would like an explanation as to why her President, her dead son's former commander-in-chief lied to her about the reason her son is dead.
He led her son to his death and she wants to know why he lied to her about the reason he did so.
He didn't have to agree with her, just stand with her. That's what real men do.
No, that's what a mindless twit would do.
He led her son to his death and she wants to know why he lied to her about the reason he did so.
Yes I know. He killed her son. He's a murderer. Blah, blah, blah....
no, he got her son killed. she wants to know why. she wants to know why the reason she was given for her son getting killed turned out to be a lie.
He led her son to his death and she wants to know why he lied to her about the reason he did so.
Perhaps he just took the word of ex-president Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Bob Graham, etc.
Well, then he fucking needs to say that. This administration has changed their story on why so many times it's hard to keep track of which reason he's peddling this week.
BTW, what you descibe above is called "passing the buck". It certainly doesn't describe anything that could remotely be thought of as a "last resort", which is of course when people generally feel troops shoud be commited. And you wanna show me where those people all recommended to Bush that he invade Iraq?
"No, that's what a mindless twit would do."
Stand by his wife? I guess I'm old-fashioned.
I hope he finds someone with the fortitude and loyalty that marriage demands. He needs to be taught some lessons.
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no. Try and keep up."
I've lapped you so many times in the last two weeks, you don't even know it.
"BTW, what you descibe above is called "passing the buck".
I think it's called partisan bashing. But that would be impossible, because Dan claims to be above that.
Stand by his wife?
No, not when she's wrong. Then you just make an idiot of yourself as well. Then they say "Look at that spineless bastard, he'll do anything she says".
I guess I'm old-fashioned.
Hardly
I hope he finds someone with the fortitude and loyalty that marriage demands. He needs to be taught some lessons.
Oh yes, Mr Perfect. Maybe you could teach him something about marriage and loyalty.
Well, then he fucking needs to say that.
Why? It has been said repeatedly by many.
This administration has changed their story on why so many times it's hard to keep track of which reason he's peddling this week.
How? Show me what has changed since this transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
BTW, what you descibe above is called "passing the buck".
No, it is called pointing out the hypocrisy we now see from those who are suddenly against the war.
It certainly doesn't describe anything that could remotely be thought of as a "last resort", which is of course when people generally feel troops shoud be commited.
You mean like waiting for them to fly into our buildings? That worked so well under Clinton didn't it?
And you wanna show me where those people all recommended to Bush that he invade Iraq?
There is much more at the link provided.
Not all ask for an invasion, but they do provide support for the idea that Saddam had/wanted dangerous weapons that the above also believed would threaten us and our allies. Most quotes were after Clinton left the White House, so the premise that Clinton lobbing a few missiles at him took care of the whole problem is false. Surely they saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusions as our president did.
Why does nobody take these people to task for "lieing" to the president and the American people? Why doesn't this Sheehan lady camp outside of Clinton's houwe or John Kerry's house or any of the others on the list for "lieing" as well? Wouldn't have anything to do with politics would it?
"Then you just make an idiot of yourself as well. Then they say "Look at that spineless bastard, he'll do anything she says"'
People are going to think what they're going to think. If he's more concerned about what people think of him then the welfare of his wife, then, I'd say he's doing what suits him best.
Rick, you don't know why he left his wife. Give the guy a break.
"Oh yes, Mr Perfect. Maybe you could teach him something about marriage and loyalty."
Is perfection required to do that? Then I probably couldnt't.
If I've displayed some faults that trouble you, feel free to air your feelings.
I'm sure you're a great husband Rick.
I'm the lucky one.
Perhaps President Bush should meet this lady...again...in public...with women who suffered under Saddam...telling their stories...then asking Mrs. Sheehan what she wants to know about the war. That would be an interesting news conference.
"Perhaps President Bush should meet this lady...again...in public...with women who suffered under Saddam..."
Sad stories, I'm sure. Do you expect fundamentalist Muslims, perhaps the Shiites now in power, to do better?
If Bush's goal is to put the woman on the spot, and eliminate her as a political enemy, you're scenario would go a long ways toward doing that.
Hope he wouldn't do it.
Do you expect fundamentalist Muslims, perhaps the Shiites now in power, to do better?
I believe in giving them a chance.
Do you believe that they are just a bunch of crazy "ragheads" or something that is incapable of self-governing? If so, who should govern them and lead them down the straight and narrow?
"I believe in giving them a chance."
I don't think there's much of a choice but to give them a chance.
Do you believe that they are just a bunch of crazy "ragheads" or something that is incapable of self-governing?"
I think they could be entirely capable of governing in some manner. Look at Iran.
If you were a woman, would you pick a Shiite Muslim country to live, or a Sunni Muslim country, Dan?
"suddenly against the war"?
show me where these people were ever suggesting we should invade Iraq.
show me where these people were ever suggesting we should invade Iraq.
Text of bill Authorizing use of force: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c1079c1mjS::
Rollcall vote of bill authorizing use of force: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
authorizing is not suggesting.
and all based on the lie of WMD
Show me where Iraq was going to fly planes into our buildings.
If I recall, it was Saudis who did that. Why hasn't Bush invaded Saudi Arabia?
so Dan, let me ask you something.
You think that if a country develops WMDs and even actually has them and has shown that they will even invade another country that has not attacked them, it is okay for someone to invade them?
That's what you are saying, correct?
so, you are saying that Iran should attack us asap instead of waiting for us to bomb them, which they have every reason to believe we will. We have WMDs and are developing more or them all the time. We have already invaded thier neighbor. The advice you give them is to attack us as soon as possible, right? Same thing for North Korea. Same thing for (fill in the blank), right?
Fold will show those damn oil companies. No gas for the RV!!! Yeah, that will teach em!
THX, you can't argue with a partisan, left wing, PC, metrosexual.
Poor Rick.
I'm the lucky one.
Sometimes you're not the lucky one, and you need to go your own way.
And he did.
Timed it perfectly, too.
Everyone loves a good divorce.
Seems to me losing a child would be enough of a strain on any marriage. From what I understand, the rest or much of the family disagrees with her. He did re-up and it was his decision, he was an adult. Is it tragic? Absolutely. The father might just feel that his son would have possibly disagreed with his Mom. Or at the least doesn't agree with choosing that way to honor his son. But he of course is instantly the bad guy. Nope she had nothing to do with it. On top of having to bury your son, inviting the national media into your life during a horrible time might have just been too much for him.
Those would be her in-laws.
Those would be her in-laws.
Oh so it's not Casey's family? Maybe the father disagrees too.
"Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks àCherie
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687224&tid=aud&sid=4687224&mid=46443
Those would be her in-laws.
Which would be what to Casey?
Nothing now that she's divorced.
Huh?
the rat wrote: I'm the lucky one
No doubt.  your chances were probably worse than a powerball play!
LOL! Yeah, maybe,
if they are her in-laws and she gets divorced, they are no longer her in-laws. in-laws means "by marriage".
But they're still his (Casey's) family and they disagree.
Â
Â
They aren't HER family. They also disagree with Cindy's other children, so it's apparently not the whole family, now is it?
They are entitled to disagree. As is Cindy with them.
Nobody said they weren't
so what's your beef?
you should be supporting her right to question our government, and yet that sure isn't how you guys are appearing.