If you are not aware, she has been a little busy the last 2 weeks. Blogging is not actually her number #1 priority right now (nor has it ever been). She will post when she finds the time.

Like a short while ago

http://sacramentofordemocracy.org/?q=node/view/3167

There is plenty of room for your Anti-American hate-filled comments if you so desire (or not).

You have still not replied to my message. I am beginning to think that part of liberal thinking is to ignore what you cannot answer and then make wild accusations to make up for it.

I only wondered about Cindy's blog because she had made blog entries on other websites but not here.

By the way, what comments did I make that were Anti-American and hate filled?

"Perhaps a little more focus on the issues of the family and a little less focus on politics might have been a salve for the wound in your family."

Wow, the insensitivity of some people never ceases to amaze me. How can one focus on the family when the family has been torn apart by the lies of a man who continues to destroy the lives of other Americans each day this war continues? Perhaps you are suggesting that it would be easier if Cindy and her family looked the other way and gave up on trying to hold the perpetrators of this crime on her family accountable. This must be so easy to say for someone who has never been the victim of a crime. Yes, what George has done to Cindy's family and the American people is a crime. Until you wake up and realize this, I suggest that you stop pretending you know what is best for Cindy and the other military families who are attempting to ensure that their children did not die in vain and that those responsible for their deaths are held accountable.

Your comment contains many uses of "Cindy and her family". However, her family is most definitely not agreeing with her.

Here is The Sheehan Family Statement written by Casey's family and extended family:

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.

You can view the entire article here

What are the names of these mystery relatives? How do you know they are Cindy's relatives? They wouldn't happen to be in-laws would they? You know that people ALWAYS agree with their in-laws. In fact, I've never heard anyone say anything bad about their in-laws before.

What difference does it make? As much as Cindy would like to make this an issue about Cindy, let us all remember that the focus should be on Casey, and these are definitely Casey's relatives. Your question regarding "in-law" status is therefore irrelevant.

Bush needs to answer the question.

What "noble cause" did Casey die for? Bush is the one who made the empty "noble cause" statement.

That's all Cindy is asking.

It's really quite simple.

I'll answer for him then, since I guess you don't know. By going into Iraq, we have stopped a dictator from killing over what is estimated to be 300,000 of his own people. See the article here
To me, an innocent life is an innocent life, whether it is Iraqi or American, and the less innocent lives lost the better. That is the noble cause. It really is quite simple.

KT, So how many innocent Iraqis have we killed in order to stop the Iraqi dictator from killing them? 10,000? 20,000? We don't know exactly how many because the Bush administration has a policy of not keeping count of the innocent dead Iraqis. In other words, he could care less how many innocent Iraqis he kills. International organizations estimate that the number of innocent Iraqis killed in this war is over 100,000.

limit your posting of information only once. We do not need the same posting multiple times on our site. If you would like to start KumbyaForDemocracy.org, you are more than welcome to post the same thing a million times if you would like.

Do not attack Cindy on a personal level if you do not personally know her. You do not know the reasons why she is going through a divorce and frankly it is none of your business.

Remember, the Dems that supported the war (there were many) were basing it on the "intelligence" (lies) that were being fed to them. I agree that some "Dems" (e.g. Zell Miller types) would have gone along with the Regressive, Radical Right, Neo-con agenda regardless of whether they knew the truth. The naive Dems believed the pResident at the time. I make no excuses for their decisions.

The point is that there is only one person who declared war on Iraq. What was the reason we went to war in 2003 again? It has been changed so many times, I can't remember what the original reason was.

Cindy wants to know what noble cause her son Casey died for. The next time you talk to Bush, could you please find out? Also, let him know that Cindy is still outside waiting to talk to him.

It was

BUSH'S LIES

that sent Casey over there. If Bush hadn't lied to us, then Casey would not have been in Iraq. Don't you get it??

If Bush hadn't lied, Casey would have been stationed somewhere that WAS NOT IRAQ. He would not have been in Iraq if Bush hadn't lied to us. He may have been safely on a base in the U.S.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this, but NONE of our dead soldiers would have been in Iraq if Bush hadn't lied.

Did I mention that the reason that over 1850 American soldiers are dead is because Bush lied us into this war? Those 1850 soldiers would have been stationed in a country that is NOT called Iraq. If they were in Germany, Japan or Ft. Hood, they would mostly likely be alive today.

I hope you can understand why we are in Iraq. It was ONE person's decision.

Three sudden and beligerent trolls KT,
Three actually KT, Chembrad, and Kumbaya. It's to be expected really. It's easy to recongnize the new traffic.

Cindy, you seem very naive about the workings of the military and the motives that cause us to sign on the dotted line and take an oath to defend our country.

No soldier wants to die. I wish everyone would live in peace and harmony. But when there are men who are committed to using force to promote tyranny, then those who are able are compelled to fight to protect those who are not able.

You believe Pres. Bush lied and that is why you lost your son. But your son was a man. He made a manly decision to volunteer to fight to preserve our free way of life. He fulfilled his oath.

I hope that you eventually come to a peace and accept your son's sacrifice and honor him for it.

The Iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with defending our country. If a President misleads the military into waging war against a sovereign country that does not pose an imminent threat to America and soldiers die, then these soldiers have died not to protect our country or our freedoms and the President is responsible for this. Protesting the war for these reasons is patriotic and you know this is exactly why Cindy is protesting this war. It is evident that you don't have the capacity to engage in a debate on this issue since you resort to name-calling--a hallmark sign of naivete.

You believe whatever you want to believe Ginny. Your cascade of logic stems from "Bush misled"...

In order to believe that Bush "lied" or "intentionally misled" us to a false war would make him a monster on par with Stalin. But by all measures (excluding the irrational screams of leftists) Bush seems to be a decent man trying to do a tough job in difficult times.

Your starting point is false and all else that follows in your logic is false.

And our military in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are, in the words of Michael Yon, "bringing worry to men who should be worried."

Try reading Michael Yon's dispatches. http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

At least you will be getting a different perspective than the MSM you love.

quote: If Bush hadn't lied, Casey would have been stationed somewhere that WAS NOT IRAQ. He would not have been in Iraq if Bush hadn't lied to us. He may have been safely on a base in the U.S.

What if he had been sent to Afghanistan? Or did Bush “lie” to us about that too?
(Did I mention that at least 537 U.S. troops have been wounded in action in Afghanistan?) http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/

(By the way, could you fill me in on how exactly Bush lied? Like maybe a quote or something? I would appreciate it.)

quote:I hope you can understand why we are in Iraq. It was ONE person's decision.

I love this one. What about the 296 representatives who voted yes to authorize the use of military force in Iraq? What the senators who voted yes (77 out of 100)? Are they responsible?
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/votes/?votenum=237&chamber=S&congress=1072
If they didn’t want Bush to use military force, they shouldn’t have voted for it. I would think that would be obvious.

Also, I am wondering how a "village idiot" like Bush managed to “mislead and lie to” our politicians. Think about it. Bush=idiot, but politicians believe Bush, so the politicians must equal greater idiots. You must have helped elect some of them. Maybe you should try voting for “smarter” people. That is, people who aren’t “mislead” by an “idiot”.

We have a troll.

BTW most of the Democrats were complicit in voting for Bush's War of Aggression.

But that doesn't abdicate Bush from his responsibilities.

Don't fall for it people.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say Bush is in anyway intelligent. He had many supporters in his web of lies and deceit. Rove, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld to name a few.

I suggest you educate yourself and read the Project for a New American Century if you want to know why your pResident lied us into this war. They have been working on this war/occupation for years. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

According to their own document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses ( .pdf format ) their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor”. (page 52). The Sept. 11th attacks fit nicely into their plan. Kind of makes you wonder...

We did need to go into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, the corporations that control the Bush administration could not make very much money there, so Bush pulled our troops out for our immoral war in Iraq. By the way, where is Osama? I seem to remember Bush saying something about getting him "dead or alive". Then later on he said he doesn't spend much time thinking about bin Laden. Which is it? You would think that catching the "mastermind" behind the 9/11 attacks would be important to the pResident.

Here are a few old quotes...

Here’s what Bush said:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Bush’s Claim
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

- Sarin gas

- Mustard gas

- VX Nerve agent

Reality
Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found


Here’s what Bush said:
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Bush’s Claim
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people

Reality
Not True
Zero Munitions Found


Here’s what Bush said:
“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Bush’s Claim
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world

Reality
Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found


Here’s what Bush said:
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Bush’s Claim
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda
And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11

Reality
Not True
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida


Here’s what Bush said:
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Bush’s Claim
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production

Reality
Not True
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.


Here’s what Bush said:
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

Bush’s Claim
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.

Reality
Not True
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003


Here’s what Bush said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Bush’s Claim
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

Reality
Not True
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.


Here’s what Cheney said:
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

Cheney’s Claim
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact

Reality
Not True
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003


Here’s what Bush said:
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Bush’s Claim
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq

Reality
Not True
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003


Here is an example of the "team effort"...

Bush Team Kept Airing Iraq Allegation
Officials Made Uranium Assertions Before and After President's Speech

I could go on and on if time was free and plentiful. Unfortunately, it is neither. Back to work now...

Oh yeah, one thing that I will agree with you on, quote: Maybe you should try voting for "smarter" people. That is, people who aren't "mislead" by an "idiot". You are 100% correct there.

quote:Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say Bush is in anyway intelligent. He had many supporters in his web of lies and deceit. Rove, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld to name a few.

So these are the evil geniuses? If they are so smart and Bush is not, then why wasn't one of THEM elected president instead? And don't you think that they would figure out that Bush was "stupid" and kick him out as an "embarrassment" for being so "stupid"?


I did as you suggested and educated myself, and although I learned a lot about missile defense systems, I was unable to find the quote that you used. Perhaps you could educate me again?

quote:By the way, where is Osama? I seem to remember Bush saying something about getting him "dead or alive". Then later on he said he doesn't spend much time thinking about bin Laden. Which is it?
Do you realize that this was a question from the press (if I remember correctly), and that these are not conflicting remarks? With all the Presidential responsibilities that Bush has, I would be surprised if he had answered yes. If he had, it could have meant, 1) that bin Laden was "getting to him" (which would not be a message that we would want bin Laden to hear because it would encourage him) and 2)that he was neglecting the rest of his duties.

Do you also realize that a lie is pretend with intent to deceive? So when you say Bush lied, yada yada, what you really mean is "was mistaken". I like how you simplify it for all of us with the "Claims" part and telling us the "reality". However, I like to read the quote and interpret it myself. Guess it's just a Republican thing.

And, just because WMD's were not found then does not mean that there were none before.

I have read your link to the Washington Post, and still find no evidence. The journalist uses the words "but" and "yet" to make things seem contradictory, but if examined closely, they are not.

quote:I could go on and on if time was free and plentiful. Unfortunately, it is neither. Back to work now...
My thoughts exactly, only I have to prepare for going back to high school soon.

I just got a freeper alert and they were wondering where KT, Chembrad and Kumbaya were. It seems they are a bit lonely over there without you.

That's nice. Are you throwing stones now? You know, that is not very tolerant of you.

It kind of reminds me of what Cindy said in what of her blog entries:
quote:I am a continued thorn in the side to the right-wing bloggers and right wing-nut journalists Read the rest here
The journalist part doesn't apply to me, since I am not one, but I find the idea of calling people "wing-nuts" (and right ones at that!) absolutely hilarious.

Anyway, you haven't answered me back on "Oh really". Guess it was just too hard hitting, or maybe you were just busy getting freeper alerts.

Maybe it's because Casey wouldn't have even been over there if Bush and his cabal hadn't lied to each and every American (and the rest of the world)!!

The person who is at fault is the one who sent him over there. The one who sent him over there is the one who lied to us. They are one and the same.

Sure, someone else pulled the trigger, but that person did not put Casey in that situation.