Cindy Sheehan Brings Anti-War, Anti-Obama Message to Martha’s Vineyard

Its nice that Sheehan gets this mention in the press. Now we can stop hearing all the whining about “where is Cindy Sheehan” from the right, as if its her fault that her calling out of Obama isn’t covered.

I believe the point is that the media doesn’t seem to be giving her the nonstop coverage she got when protesting during the Bush era. You couldn’t miss her. Frankly, I didn’t even know that she was still out there. The Left-owned media is still looking out for its President.

” The Left-owned media is still looking out for its President.”
There is no ‘left-owned’ media in the United States – it’s effectively ALL owned by the wealthy. In fact there really isn’t even a true ‘left’ in American, it’s just normal people and the fanatical Republican right.

“Americans voted Obama in on a landslide, due in large part to his promises to wrap-up the failed Iraq and Afghanistan wars.”
Not true.
Obama has been supportive of the mission in Afghanistan and campaigned on that.
He is not anti-war. He is anti-stupid war.

“The two deadliest months of the Afghan war have now occurred on Mr. Obama’s watch. He has declared this the “good” war, a “war of necessity.” He has bought it, and he owns it.”
Yes he does.
Of course if we should happen to capture Osama Bin Laden the right will immediately want the war back.

“I believe the point is that the media doesn’t seem to be giving her the nonstop coverage she got when protesting during the Bush era. You couldn’t miss her.”
s | Aug 27, 2009 2:04:52 PM
Non-stop coverage you couldn’t miss? Really. Care to cite any media reports on her from 2008? It should be all over the web (sites other than Michael Moore or “Peace Mom of the Year” coverage please).
The Naked Cowboy in Times Square got more real media coverage. Sheehan was relegated to a far-left darling and backburnered by the media well before the end of Bush’s term.

“The Naked Cowboy in Times Square got more real media coverage. Sheehan was relegated to a far-left darling and backburnered by the media well before the end of Bush’s term.”
Many people against the War in Iraq turned a deaf ear to Sheehan when she blasted the Afghanistan war and later Israel, resigned from the Democratic Party because some posters at Democratic Underground were critical of her and other things with people uncomfortable with the politics of ANSWER which Sheehan became more closely aligned with(vs United for Peace and Justice)

Let’s see…unemployment near 10% (and that doesn’t include all the people who have just given up looking for work), near $2 trillion deficit, 8,000 pork items in the so-called stimulus plan, job-killing cap-and-trade legislation, bungled healthcare reform…yup, that Obama’s doin’ one helluva job!

“She acts as if she is the only person to lose a loved one in Iraq.”
She does nothing of the sort.

“8,000 pork items in the so-called stimulus plan”
You destroy your whole argument with this sort of self-serving, unsubstantiated nonsense.

Sheehan got nightly coverage on all three networks when she camped out in Crawford, Texas. Maureen Dowd conferred “absolute moral authority, or some such twaddle, on her in the New York Times. Susan Sarandon agreed to play her in a movie. (My guess is that the movie, if made, will have no scenes from Martha’s Vineyard.)

Ms. Sheehan is a pathetic, exploited person who should be pitied. As long as there is one person willing to take up arms to force their will on another, we’ll have war & conflicts. The truly illuminating aspect of her Quixotic quest to “stop unjust war” is how five years ago Iraq was the “unjust, unwinnable” war, while Afghanistan was the place we should have been focused on. Maybe Afghanistan has intensified because the surge in Iraq worked and all the foreign fighters who were waging jihad there are going to Afghanistan now? Funny how the same foreign fighters in Afghanistan are potential terrorists who need to be eradicated, while in Iraq those foreign fighters were only there because the United States went in.
Ms. sheehan was an instrument to embarass President Bush and the left leaning press exploited her for all she was worth. PITIFUL

“He has done nothing on his promises to get US out of there.”
Obama promised to get troops out of Iraq and increase the efforts in Afghanistan – both are happening – as promised.

“Just goes to show that if a liberal is in office, it is perfectly acceptable to bomb and kill other people. Remember Clinton and Kosovo? Nobody protested that.”
Actually there was a weird nexus between right wingers and far left nuts on Milosevic being a misunderstood figure.
The IAC (which later formed ANSWER) was against the war.
The right wing mostly because they just knee jerk went against anything Clinton did (though apparently philandering came is back in vogue among the GOP) but there was also an element that hates Muslims so much they defended the Serbs ethnic cleansing.
You can see that sentiment expressed on Free Republic to this day.

“Sheehan got nightly coverage on all three networks when she camped out in Crawford, Texas.”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 27, 2009 2:45:37 PM
In 2008? We all know Sheehan was flavor of the month in 2006, just like folks screaming “keep government healthcare out of my Medicare!” at town halls were last month.
Are you claiming that Sheehan was covered nightly by all three networks when she camped out in Crawford in 2008? For that matter, are you claiming she camped out in 2008?
She was old news and rarely covered by 2007. No reason she’s suddenly fresh now.

“The elusive “principle” for omitting tort reform from Obamacare has been discovered:”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 27, 2009 2:52:55 PM
Did you ever find that example of a state where tort reform was proven to lower health care premiums you claimed existed the other day?
Tort reform is a fine idea – that’s why it has been done by 34 states. And has shown small savings versus the total cost of health care and negligible impact on health insurance premiums.
If tort reform was still a big plum, the Republican Congress and Republican President would have gone after it years ago (while they were doing a fair job wringing fraud out of Medicare and kicking illegal immigrants out of Medicare matching grant funds to states). Now it’s just noise to distract from not having a meaningful alternative to the real methods used by every other first world nation to get equivalent health care at half the per capita spending (aka, a private insurance or public health care option).

jhw395 says: “She was old news and rarely covered by 2007. No reason she’s suddenly fresh now.”
Actually, she was covered very frequently in 2007 with over 4240 news stories about her, compared to 6250 in 2006. In 2008 she did drop down to 1350 stories, but I would certainly argue that her protesting Obama while being ignored by most of the rest of the left is what makes her newsworthy in 2009. For the first 8 months of 2009 she has been ignored by most of the media and only has 477 stories about her, this shows the hypocrisy of the media in covering her protests.

As Ms Sheehan will tell you, there is virtually no anti-war left, there is only the anti-Republican-war left. Rarely are the idiots more useful.

May God Bless Cindy Sheehan. She’s right to protest Obama who lied during the campaign with false promises to end the wars. Not only is he failing to end the wars, he’s ESCALATING the war in Afghanistan. Now, Afghanistan will become Obama’s Vietnam. That’s unfortunate.
Obama’s early foolish supporters who betrayed Hillary in favor of the unqualified Obama because they wanted to punish the brilliant Hillary for her ‘War’ vote and they believed Obama’s lies about ending the war should be choking on their kool-aid right now.
Fools are made not born.
*************************************

“She’s right to protest Obama who lied during the campaign with false promises to end the wars.”
You speak from ignorance – Obama promised to increase the war in Afghanistan and withdraw troops from Iraq. Both are taking place as promised.

“In 2008? We all know Sheehan was flavor of the month in 2006, just like folks screaming “keep government healthcare out of my Medicare!” at town halls were last month”
More breath-taking boneheaded equivocation from jhw. One Cindy Sheehan equals tens of thousands of ordinary citizens at town halls.
Yeah, they’re all fringe conservatives.
No wonder the left is losing this debate.

Funny how, for almost all of the Left, War without George W Bush…is just not War at all.

“You are absolutely incorrect that Bush’s U6 number was ever at 12% when the U3 was at 5% or 6%.”
WSJ Blog 2008:”The headline unemployment rate of 6.7% in November isn’t the only one the Labor Department reports. And in table A-12, on page 19 of the report, they also share their broadest estimate of the unemployment rate, which includes the total unemployed (the standard rate) plus “all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons… plus all marginally attached workers.”
That rate (called “U-6”) in November? A whopping 12.5%.”

“Actually, she was covered very frequently in 2007 with over 4240 news stories about her, compared to 6250 in 2006. In 2008 she did drop down to 1350 stories, but I would certainly argue that her protesting Obama while being ignored by most of the rest of the left is what makes her newsworthy in 2009. For the first 8 months of 2009 she has been ignored by most of the media and only has 477 stories about her, this shows the hypocrisy of the media in covering her protests.”
Jason | Aug 27, 2009 3:26:50 PM
Interesting – where does this data come from? I know that she has remained popular on the far left ‘media’ (Michael Moore’s websites, Air America, etc.).
The numbers are fascinating – they show an exponential decay in the numbers of news stories with an R-value of .97! Graph the numbers, look at that graph and just try to tell me there is the slightest discontinuity when Obama was elected. To be honest, I am amazed at how closely it follows the exponential decay curve – are you sure those numbers weren’t made up somewhere by a late-to-deadline math major slumming as a reporter somewhere? (Kidding – I don’t have a problem believing that this sort of exponential decay is real; math is modeled to model nature in the end.)
Graph it yourself and throw a trendline on it (you may need to invert the order if you’re using Excel’s autotrend line feature).
2009 716 (projected, based on first 8 months of 477)
2008 1350
2007 4240
2006 6250
2005 11000

“Good enough for me. It’s what I’ve said all along.”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 27, 2009 3:41:19 PM
No, you told some lie about tort reform actually resulting in a reduction in premiums (what we’re after – lower spending on health care = lower insurance rates) yesterday. When I requested you name the state, suddenly you didn’t say it?
Despite some very comprehensive and aggressive reform, such as in Texas, no such reduction in health insurance premiums is seen (Texa’s premiums are actually slightly above the national average for a family of 4).
If tort reform were still a big target, it would have been done when the Republicans were in power. They are no friends of trial lawyers and would have LOVED that to be the storyline of the 2006 elections.

“I must say that I have a lot more respect for Mrs. Sheehan since her anti war rhetoric is party independent. It would seem that most of the left is only anti war when there is a republican president. ”
Looks like the right wingers have their talking points as we have seen some variation on this from various spambots.
Of course they ignore that the war people were against was Iraq, not Afghanistan.

I thought you had sait yourself, JWH. I thought you said premiums were reduced by only 10%, or something like that. If I misunderstood you, I am sorry. And I hope you’ll fogive me for believing the Chairman of the DNC while rejecting your mumbling out of hand.
In the meantime, Obama has dropped to an all-time low of 50% with Gallup (same as the right-wing lackey Rasmussen). If he drops one more point before November 1, he’ll be the third-fastest to fall below 50% snce WWII. Anyone betting he won’t?
To paraphrase G.W. Bush, “Barry, you’re doin’ a great jb!”

“In the meantime, Obama has dropped to an all-time low of 50% with Gallup”
This is far from an ‘all-time’ low – many Presidents including Bush and Reagan went far, far lower in the polls than this.

“Keep moving those goal posts jhw, someone is bound to keep up with your shifting sand and think you’re capable of making a rational argument.”
jhw’s comments are usually far more rational and factual than the insults and idiocy from the few remnants of the neo-con Repulbican right who post on this site.

“You mean the war that the Soviets had for all intents and purposes won until we gave the Mujadein money and stingers? ”
Theer you go. That’s what I was waiting for.

It’s an all-time low for Obama on Gallup, Sallyride. (Hello? Anybody home there….?)

Good old Cindy Sheehan….when she is done with Obama she can start picketing
ABC, NBC, MSNBC…seems like they don’t bbelieve in “freedom of speech…those sstations have decided not to “air” and nnegative Obamacare ads!! All of you Obama lovers won’t be satistied until we have lost all of our freedoms!
Start boycotting these stations and the pcompanies that buy ad time!!

Ms. Sheehan,
As you can see from the disparaging tone of this article, with Obama in the White House your former friends and supporters no longer have any use for or interest in you. Truth is (as I’m sure you realize now) the liberals, the media and Democrats in general never really gave a damn about you or your son. You were just a tool they used to attack Bush with. With Bush gone and Obama running the wars now, there is no more use for you.

“ABC, NBC, MSNBC…seems like they don’t bbelieve in “freedom of speech…those sstations have decided not to “air” and nnegative Obamacare ads!! All of you Obama lovers won’t be satistied until we have lost all of our freedoms! ”
Freedom of speech means we have a right to have our commercials aired?

“.is that why seniors will not get a cost of living wage for a few years yet their Medicare cost will go up? Who the hell is running this country!”
ross | Aug 27, 2009 5:17:05 PM
Gee, if only Congress could do something about health care costs.

“Chariman Dean of the Democratic National Committee says that the reason tort reform is not included in Obamacare is that the Democrats did not want to take on the trial lawyer. JWH539 says the reason is…something else.
Question for JWH: Is Chairman Dean lying? (A simple “yes” or “no” will do.)”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 27, 2009 4:44:45 PM
No (and he did not say the ONLY reason, and I never have either).
The question Dean was replying to was:
“There’s $200 million over 10 years in savings if we had tort reform and nobody loses but the lawyers,” said Tulino. “Why have we not even considered that tonight in the discussion sir? Tell the American people that.”
Are YOU saying that $20 million a year in savings is the solution to our $2.2 TRILLION a year healthcare costs increasing 6-8% a year? A 0.0001% savings?
Yes or No will suffice.

was it not obama who campaigned and debated arguing that we will have the same health care as members of congress and your taxes will not go up one dime( all taxes)if you make less than 250k. so where is the plan that says we will have the same health care as members of congress?hence the 50% approval rate and dropping. no republican caused this merely the mans own words.

so to date no one has come out and said how this is going to be paid for? help me understand how this is going to be paid for and maybe people can behind it.

Where’d all the hippies go?
Is it still patriotic to dissent?

“What you libs seem to forget…we seniors paid into social security and medicare for years out of our paychecks and on the backs of employers”
You seem to not understand how Social Security/MediCare works.
Your previous payments into the system paid for the benefits for the retirees at that time.
My payments into the system now are paying your benefits.

workers that is

“What you libs seem to forget…we seniors paid into social security and medicare for years out of our paychecks and on the backs of employers…”
ross | Aug 27, 2009 5:56:49 PM
And all that money, taken together and put into a lock box, would be inadequate to pay what you’re going to draw out of it. (Particularly if healthcare costs continue rising at or even near the current rate.)

“Not picking nits but it actually takes 3 works to pay for 1 person on social security.”
Yes.
Sorry if my comment implied otherwise.

“Exactly. And these are what the left calls successful govt programs. In the private sector they are call Ponzi schemes.”
Because when Social Security was enacted there were no savings yet so the current workers had to support the retired workers.
By all means vote to end Social Security.
And watch what happens to the GOP.

Regarding Chairman Dean lying – YES. If his lips are moving, he’s lying.

jhw…i dont hate the man or anyone. being an independent i support who i think can do the best job. i would support someone who could do all the things obama prommised without raising taxes on 95% of americans. i jsut knew and know that that cant happen as the math doesnt work. consequently i dont like when some people think they can pull a fast one and play on the gulibility of the masses.

“Posted by: Manitu | Aug 27, 2009 6:37:46 PM”
Stupid government…developing the structure we’re using to communicate right now.

“No body has paid anything for me except my employer and me!”
Again you apparently don’t understand how MediCare and Social Security work.
Your benefits are being paid by today’s workers.
Your paying into the system paid for other people to enjoy benefits.
What’s next demanding the government keeps its hand off your Medicare?

Again you apparently don’t understand how MediCare and Social Security work.
Posted by: Ryan C |
Medicare is “going broke” (Colorado) and “unsustainable” and “running out of money” (New Hampshire). And it’s “in deep trouble if we don’t do something, because as you said, money doesn’t grow on trees” (Montana). – Barack Obama

“THE ELECTION WENT TO OBAMA – AND… BY NOT THAT MUCH.”
%3% to 46% popular vote and an electoral college landslide.

“Well, at least it is for us right-wingers.”
I guess there is some a perverted sense of accomplishment when one realizes that many people have bought a lie told.

the most important thing to be tackled right now is unemployment…not health care, not cap and trade, and not a stimulas bill that was rushed for pork projects in democratic districs. i want the president and congress to focus on job creation in the private sector. a man is not a man unless he feels he is contributing. both my brother and sister are jobless and they are 50 years old and have never been unemployed. put us back to work.

She needs to realize that the current wars are now politically acceptable and as such she is no longer newsworthy.Besides,her son died in Iraq;Mr. Obama has pulled the troops out of there like he promised.They are now in the “good war” in Afganistan- a much easier military project.

“i would support someone who could do all the things obama prommised”
catman | Aug 27, 2009 6:25:42 PM
You can’t even cite what Obama promised in his own words – you just keep making stuff up and claiming he said it. That’s not debate, it’s slander.

Way to go, Cindy!!! I know you lost a son in the illegal war in Iraq. My son served there, and for the most part returned home whole, for which we are very thankful. He feels, however, that he was extremely fortunate and that many of his US Army comrades lost their lives for no good purpose. The war the Village Idiot from Texas brought about with help from Grim Reaper Chaney & Co. was a tragic mistake and must be ended NOW! Add the debacle in Afghanistan to it and work to bring our troops home safely now! If LBJ were alive he’d contend that both countries are not worth a bucket of warm spit. Keep at them Cindy, our hearts are with you!

Obama is keeping the US military busy in Afghan dying in a land war that Hilliary, Biden, leader of Canada, our military and many others told him would get our troops killed. Why is he doing this? But then I have to remember that it was Hondorus’s military that tossed their evil socialist dictator out just this year, and that Obama has been funnelling Billions of US tax money into the coffers of Americorp to build Obama’s own personal army under the guise of civic duty–but all know this is the personal army Obama has spoken of pre-election. Be very afraid people…even you peace doves–Obama is using war to make himself more powerful and more money…..in his quest for socilialist dictator.

“came to be seen as on the fringe” ?
That is a sick effort at mind control…
on the fringe of a sick blood-thirsty corporatist Empire willing to massacre and rape innocents and steal their stuff.
Shame.

Blessings upon you, Cindy Sheehan.
If this is how you manage going on, manage to get out of bed each morning after losing your child, manage to find meaning in your and your child’s life, so be it.
The political and media left has abandoned you but you have stayed true to yourself. Bless you and may you find true peace.

New poll from The Economist: Obama approval at 48%.

Cindy Sheehan protests Bush and Charlie Gibson loves it.
Cindy Sheehan protests Obama and Charlie Gibson wants he to “give it a rest.”
It doesn’t get more biased than that.
Charlie Gibson: Official Tool of the Obama administration

“66.8 Millions People. Wrap your brain around it Mike C. 66.8 Million people in this country DID want Obama as President.
President Obama won handily in popular vote and by a landslide in electoral college.”
Would likely be a different story if it was held again today. Politics do change over time and he can probably rebound, but consistantly living in Jan. 2009 isn’t going to make today any better.

In Regards to KR. Sheehan has commited her life to the prospects of peace. A Living Idea that can only be possible if people put forth the effort. She is a true patriot. Peace is a non partisan issue it is universal, and can only be possible by those who strive for it, consistently. If you write a blank check to the president, as a people, it doesn’t matter who is in office. Instead of Bombing a Suspected Terroist in the Af-Pak war, We should be rebuilding broken things here at home with that money.

It doesn’t get more biased than that.
Charlie Gibson: Official Tool of the Obama administration
Posted by: drjohn | Aug 28, 2009 11:49:25 AM
He is a TOOL lol I like that drjohn!

“A Living Idea that can only be possible if people put forth the effort. She is a true patriot. Peace is a non partisan issue it is universal, and can only be possible by those who strive for it, consistently.”
How beautiful. Now if we could only get the rest of the world to live in peace fanatasy land we’d be good to go. Unfortunately, most of the world is far more brutal and violent than your cushing US lifestyle. There are those out there, such as AQ and hezbolah, and other violent groups, to ensure peace is never achieved until their goals are met. For those, you stand up and deny them their goals by fighting back.
“If you write a blank check to the president, as a people, it doesn’t matter who is in office. Instead of Bombing a Suspected Terroist in the Af-Pak war, We should be rebuilding broken things here at home with that money.”
Short memory there Jon. Those that struck at us on 911 enjoyed safe haven in Afghanistan. We are denying them safe havens. You think we should reverse this policy? For some pipe dream of peace, as if those will share our desire for peace? Sillyness. Get off your Disney ride and start reading about the real threats to peace in the world.

“She’s trying to re-live the soviet backed 60′s peace movement. Face it, she’s using her son to get attention.”
‘The soviet backed 60′s peace movement’ – what paranoid nonsense.
There was no substantive evidence found of any ‘soviet-backed’ peace movement in the United States.
People in America were sick of a war that killed 50,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese – and contributed to America being despised.

oh now she is doing it for the wrong reason….people just can’t keep their stories straight…it was not ok 8 months ago….but not now……now when we had the highest amount of servicemen and woman in a month since 2002…..NOW IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER

My favorite “protester” is the little mini-Hitler in Denver that attacked democrat party headquarters in an effort to blame it on republicans. This is a small version of what Hitler and the Nazis did when they set fire to the Reichstag. Same thing exactly. Smaller scale. This is the ethic that the Left teaches. From the National Socialist German Workers’ Party of 1933, to today’s Left. They are here.

MIKE C
Have you checked out the Republicans support yet no Independents at all And have lost alot of the Hispanic support due to their foul mouth trashing of Sonia Sotomayor so dont get you Hopes up of the Republicans bouncing back aint happening

“66.8 Million people in this country DID want Obama as President”
Not anymore.
Obama lied. Healthcare died.

“Posted by: KR | Aug 28, 2009 1:28:04 PM”
Palin’s approval level has fallen and even more people consider incapable of holding office.
If you really think a revote with Obama/Biden v McCain/Palin where McCain/Palin would win, you would be quite disappointed.

Crusher, the window smasher made no attempt to blame her actions on Republicans. It was done as a protest against Obama’s right wing policies. Same goes for the guy who made the Obama/Riddler graphic.
Ryan, Mike and the Fascist: the number of Obama voters no longer support him may or may not grow, depending on whether or not Kucinich or some other single-payer is going to run. There aren’t any ex-Obama voters who are going to go Republican. Count on it.

‘The soviet backed 60′s peace movement’ – what paranoid nonsense.
There was no substantive evidence found of any ‘soviet-backed’ peace movement in the United States.
People in America were sick of a war that killed 50,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese – and contributed to America being despised.
Posted by: sally ride | Aug 28, 2009 1:58:24 PM
**
You know, I’ve been looking into this as KR mentioned it before and while the antiwar movement was influenced by the 1950s peace movement, which was influenced by the American Communist party, by the mid 1960s it seemed to be more of a mass movement kind of thing tied into counterculture, the social and sexual revolutions, rock and roll– and a really, really bad “war”. I’m fascinated by the psychological warfare theory, but there really ISN’T substantive evidence that the movement was “soviet backed” and the claim is very controversial (as,fairplay, KR warned me it was)
Anyway. . .
I’m looking forward to the new Woodstock movie. I suppose that makes me a wacked out lefty communist in some people’s eyes :>) Just a concert-lover, folks and someone who believes in protesting wars you don’t believe in.
Bailey, I’d suggest it wasn’t just Bush, but rather the way we got into the war; the way it was misleadingly sold and sold and sold, the way the war was mismanaged, the way it distracted from Afghanistan and finding bin Laden, the giddyup cowboy speeches, etc, etc., etc. — and for some, an antiwar sentiment in general.

Obama bobbleheads is what our mainstream press are. Just ask Olbeermann.
Cindy the media does not need you anymore. Sorry about your son.
ABC NBC CBS all forgot about the war on terror.

Otherwise, those anti-war folks would have supported the US against alQueda in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
Posted by: Sigmonde | Aug 28, 2009 7:10:35 PM
***
Riiiiiiight. So you missed the fact that very early on intelligence suggested there was no Al Qaeda- Iraq connection, and you also missed the fact that the Sept. 11 commission found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, And you also missed the fact that a declassified report by the Pentagon’s acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble provided, errrrr, insight into the circumstances behind Feith’s pre-Iraq war assessment of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection — an assessment that was contrary to said US intelligence agency findings, and helped bolster the Bush administration’s case for the Iraq war. And you also missed the fact that the Pentagon’s Inspector General concluded that Secretary Feith’s office ‘developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,’ which included ‘conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.’”
And, I suppose you also missed the fact that “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” the group Bush referenced often didn’t exist prior to 9/11– the American occupation of Iraq is what incited them to form.
If there had been Al Qaeda in , or some 9/11 connection to, Iraq, or WMD’s for that matter, perhaps some of the anti-war protestors wouldn’t have been so outraged.

“Of course it was about Bush. Otherwise, those anti-war folks would have supported the US against alQueda in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.”
You seem simply able to ignore the fact Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 – and nothing to do with Al Qaeda until AFTER Bush attacked.
Al Qaeda was in Afganistan and part of 9/11, not Iraq. Hence the support for the war effort.

“Regardless of when alqaeda first set up shop in Iraq it is indisputable that they were there by the time the antiwar movement got their rage on.”
Nonsense, the opposition to the war in Iraq was in full swing even before the first bomb was dropped. Hundreds of thousands of people marched nation-wide and around the world attempting to prevent the attack.

Regardless of when alqaeda first set up shop in Iraq
***
That’s an awful big regardless, and it dismisses the complete and utter lack of trust in judgment, words, proclamations and strategies Bush, Cheney and company managed to build up for themselves with much of the country, not just the left.
Beginning in 2002 and continuing in 2003 there were anti-war protests against the invasion into Iraq, over 3,000 of them. The rage was on among anti war protesters. By 2005, it wasn’t just anti-war protesters who thought the Iraq War was a mistake. From
2005-2007, polls found that there seemed to be more opponents to the war in the US than supporters.
If by “surge” you mean General Petraeus’s overall strategy, not just the surge in troops with no end in sight and you’re throwing in the changes that came with Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and you’re putting words in my mouth and claiming I said no politics were played or anything about ALL anti-war protesters, then I suppose you have a point that it eventually came to be quite a bit about Bush and his admin’s policies and distortions and mishandling, but it didn’t start out being just about Bush, and I would maintain it was never just about Bush– though he wasn’t an asset to his own causes as time wore on and his incompetence became more and more clear even to those who voted for him twice. I think you’re twisting and distorting a lot of things to make your argument and keep the argument within your world view and paradigm. The original ridiculous statement was: “Of course it was about Bush. Otherwise, those anti-war folks would have supported the US against alQueda in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.” You haven’t said anything that makes that statement less incorrect or mine less correct, but you’re entitled to what I consider a faulty opinion.
And, btw, I respect General Petraeus and had nothing to do with the General Betrayus stuff. I actually think McCain dumbed down his brilliance and strategy for the campaign, hence playing politics with the surge as well.

so I’ll just ask. Is there sufficient evidence, in your view, to support the claim that opposition to the war in Iraq came to be more about Bush than anthing else?
***
If you mean Bush’s policies and handling of the war and lies and distortions to the public, I would say I’m not aware of any “evidence” at all but in my opinion, yes that could be true for some; HOWEVER, that yes is specifically in regards to those who wanted to get out after not opposing the Iraq war from the get-go. IMO, for many/most actual “anti-war” folks it was about a pre-emptive war started on faulty information, and possibly false pretenses, and hence a bad idea from the get-go– and that wasn’t about Bush or some sort of dissonance in regards to fighting al Qaeda, I think the actual anti-war folks were against it in the beginning, and it’s more people from the middle and the right that jumped on board the opposition train as time pressed on. I can’t claim I actually understand them. I don’t think of them as the real heart of the opposition or the true “anti-war folks”. I guess they caught on a little late and then … who knows. I can’t really speak for them.

I’ll also go back to a couple of other post and agree with them–
***
I know this is hard for right wingers who only see in black and white and therefore they think there are only two options; for-war or anti-war.
While there is certainly a large contingent of anti-war folks who remain so, the truth is many people who opposed Iraq supported military operations in Afghanistan.
In short it proves very little.
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 28, 2009 5:18:22 PM
***
And–
Nonsense, the opposition to the war in Iraq was in full swing even before the first bomb was dropped. Hundreds of thousands of people marched nation-wide and around the world attempting to prevent the attack.
Posted by: sallyride | Aug 29, 2009 1:30:28 AM
***
Both true, IMHO.

Both true, IMHO.
Posted by: Alyson |
Ok. So you pretty much buy in to the whole Dem narrative. Gotcha down.
And what do you make of the emerging out-of-Afghanistan soon movement or do you not acknowledge its existence?

My view is that the Dems played politics with the Iraq war and used it to bash Bush.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn
Bush and Co. proposed reasons that America should fear Iraq, and it was necessary to invade for american security, with the added cover of UN resolutions, (as if those folks enjoyed participating in the UN..)
Bush & Co. were wrong with their stated policy decisions and rationale….plain and simple, what they said was not true.
you can couch this any way you care to, but, they got it wrong, their policies started a war by mistake, and it is my belief that as more documentation becomes declassified the extent of this strategic blunder and acts associated with it will bring shame on our country
Afghanistan is morphing into something far from the initial goals stated after Sept. 11th.
It is a conflict that can’t be won, and as much as I would like to see Obama come out ahead there, I think in the end he too will be proven wrong with his decisions there.

Ok. So you pretty much buy in to the whole Dem narrative. Gotcha down.
And what do you make of the emerging out-of-Afghanistan soon movement or do you not acknowledge its existence?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Aug 29, 2009 4:44:42 PM
***
I’d say the first statement is pretty dismissive of me and oversimplifies the situation as the Dems began divided on the issue and there has been more than one narrative. In the 2004 and 2008 primaries, I didn’t vote for those who had voted for the Iraq War. On the other hand, as I mentioned I do respect General Petraeus and I have listened very carefully to everything he has said. Right now, I am supportive of what we’re doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan– and while I need to read up more on the issues surrounding bin Laden in Pakistan and what can be done, I’m supportive of more hawkish type stuff under given circumstances than a lot of my truly liberal, antiwar friends and colleagues. I tend to get walloped from both sides left and right– but I do think many of these issues involve more nuance than they’re often given due to our sound bite culture.
There is growing disapproval and discontent about Afghanistan. It’s intensified along with the rising U.S. and NATO casualty rates, now at the highest level of the nearly 8-year-old conflict. Absolutely! I’m not part of the discontent, although, of course, no one likes casualties and my heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones. I’m not one to say we should stay there till the bitterest of ends, come what may, no matter what till we meet unrealistic end goals. However, the WH admin has assembled a list of about 50 measurements to gauge progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan. My understanding is that they measure things like newly trained Afghan army recruits, Pakistani counterinsurgency missions and on-time delivery of promised U.S. resources, and that the results will be used to fine-tune the list which will be presented to Congress by Sept. 24th. I’d like to see that. I think whether the conflict can be “won” (and/or our objectives can be achieved) is dependent on the goals, and how realistic they are– and a good assessment of where we are now.

You are in charge. Bush and Petraeus want the surge. What would you have done?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Aug 30, 2009 2:06:33 PM
***
Yikes. I’m not sure why you’re so interested in my opinion on this as I’m no expert, but as I recall the surge was proposed a few months prior to Petraeus taking over in Iraq and before I became familiar with the Petraeus doctrine overall. Because he is so articulate and bright and experienced, I’ve always felt a certain amount of trust and found a great amount of credibility to everything he brings to the table– moreso than with politicians and partisans. Hence, I was very uneasy about the surge until I became more familiar with Petraeus and his efforts overall– so I consider your question imperfect as I wasn’t in charge and didn’t have all the same information one in charge would have, but if I was in charge and had talked to Gen. Petraeus and understood his overall philosophy and strategy, I would’ve voted for his proposal. Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20. I don’t think just a surge in troops alone did the job necessarily– it was part of the story, although I’m amazed by and very supportive of our troops. I think the way it got boiled down in the campaign was politics by politicians on both side of the aisle. I’ve been frustrated by both parties when it comes to discussions of the war and foreign policy in sound bites. I think Obama painted himself into a corner a bit where he couldn’t really say yes, John McCain’s surge worked. I’m not even clear that it was John McCain’s version of the surge that worked. I credit General Petraeus.
So, are you wrong? I don’t know. I’m not sure what you’re asking that about. I still think the original statement I said was ridiculous was ridiculous, and other than defending that, I don’t really have any big bones of contention that I find worth pursuing. You’ve acknowledged both parties played politics with the war. I’ll even throw in a “big time.”

Sigmonde….too many people in this country are as naive or dumb as you. Al Qaeda has been around for many years, and were training their followers in Iraq under the approval of Sadam Hussein.
I supported both wars, and my son has been serving in both. Just remember that his service makes it possible for you, those like you and the Sheehans of this planet to enjoy the freedoms of shooting your mouths off on subjects you know nothing about.
The only one I feel sorry for is Sheehan’s son who gave his life for what he believed in, only to have his mother disgrace him and make it meaningless.

Staying with the subject — Cindy Shehan ( spelled wrong on purpose ) She is a NON entity.

Posted by: Lorraine | Aug 30, 2009 7:52:11 PM
Wow, Lorraine. If you actually have a son, I appreciate his service but you clearly can’t read. Sigmonde is actually as gullible as YOU, and I’m likely the one you think was shooting my mouth off.
Here’s why I think you’re full of it. From WaPo:
Saturday, September 9, 2006
“A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.
Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda’s overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein “only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden.”
The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran’s, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.”
In addition, there is the other declassified information I mentioned, BUT you’re likely one of the 69% who believed on the eve of the war that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, right?

I HAVE NO BREAD IN MY CUPBOARD? CAN I EAT CAKE ? PLEASE GIVE ME A MORSEL OR A CRUMB WILL DO.

she is a disgrace to the memory of her son
too bad she wasn’t in the car with Teddy
do you think Obama is stupid enough to meet with her

The media is so biased it is sickening. When Bush was president all the media outlets covered Cindy Sheehan. Now that she is protesting Nobama you dont here anything about it. The change is here. God help us all.

So the only thing it took to change liberals against the wars to for the wars was putting a D over and R… WOW, you folks come pretty CHEAP!!! PATHETIC!!! DISGRACEFUL lot you are!!! It’s so sad to see you become what you proclaimed to despise. Warmongering thugs corrupt to the core and drunk with power from stealing other peoples money at the barrell of a gun. Maybe Obama IS Cheney’s cousin after all. The policy shoe still fits!!!