I am not american( I mean northamerican)but a chilean woman who love peace and freedom.We suffered a lot when other stupid president of USA,imposed a dictatorship in my country.This is why I don´t like what Bush is doing in Irak and everywhere.I was touched by Molly Ivins coments and by her constructive sense of humour.We will miss her but w´llgo on working for peace and human rights
Dr. Haydee Lopez M.D,M.P.H.
old activist for Human Rights

Asked and answered, Sandi ... er, Sandy ... uh, Sindi. Whatever.

First let me apologize. I accidentally typed “Sandy” instead of “Sindy” My bad.

Now on with the show!

Sweating? That’s your come-back? Wow, I am hurt. EVS.

Let’s go back to post 22408.

And I quote, “please, tell me more about what you find wrong with the Republicans and the “Scumbag”.
And if it wouldn’t be any trouble can you please tell me what the Democrats would do differently. Please include as much detail as possible because I get tired of our current politicians speaking ambiguously. “I have a plan!” Well for the love of Lucifer, what is your plan John?
“
Those are my questions.
Does that help?

My starving mind is hungrily awaiting your well thought-out prose.

Sandi, did you have a question or are you just, oh, I don’t know, sweating?

WW~
Whoopee! My colors are showing. Enough already. What? Are you 5 years old?

Why can’t you answer any of my questions? Is your favorite barista on vacation? It’s tough when you have to think for yourself isn’t it?

(WW, the barista comment is funny because it is basically saying that you get all your political views from your morning “spirited” discussion at your local Espresso Stand on your way to drop the kids off at their Motessori.)

Sindy, you’re true colors are showing. You don’t care about the weapons the military uses “to get the job done.” Thanks for letting us know, wingnut.

WW,
Originally I asked, “I did not know that. Can you please give us more info about that. I would like you to cite the articles on this. I find it very interesting.”

Personally I don’t give a rats a** what the military uses to get a job done.

You only care if our military uses an illegal weapon. You don’t care if any other military does. You don’t care if other governments kill thousands of innocent people. But if our government has a single instance that might be out of line with your patchouli clouded vision then the entire United States should be hung.

Have you looked at Darfur lately? Here is a quote for you.

“We beg the international community, somebody, come and save us,” Sheik Ali said. “We have no means to protect ourselves. The only thing we can do is run and hide in the mountains and caves. We will all die.”

Pretty sad huh. But I guess you don’t care.
I guess it is just easier to chat with your friends about Bush being a war criminal than it is to try to make a difference with the people that really are being exterminated. To dangerous for you?

If you are going to stand up for human rights then stand tall for everyone. Or are the poor innocent people of Darfur to dark and poor for you to care about?

You and I have wrangled about your questioning that the U.S. used white phosophorous munitions in Iraq. You asked for evidence and I provided it.

Then you insinuated that I was lying, and went into your divergent little screed about the two parties. That’s irrelevant to any of this, so let’s get back to the original issue between us which was that the U.S. used white phosophorous munitions in Fallujah.

The U.S. used them in an offensive capacity in a city that it knew contained thousands of civilians. It was a war crime. How should the Democrats make the world better? They should start by impeaching Bush and Cheney, and then handing them and a bunch of others over to the World Court for war crimes trials.

WW, you are so paranoid. I don’t know what a milblog is but I’m sure you probably irritated people there.
I like how you try to sound as if you are on top of things. Yup, you’re on to me. So tell me what a freeper is? And why is it that you assume that the person who sent me the link is someone else that you know from some other board?

So why can’t you answer my question about what the Dems can do differently to make this world a better place.
I guess I stumped you. But just to make you feel better, the Reps can’t do any better. Both parties suck. That’s what happens when you pay some one to represent you. It’s all about what they can do for themselves.

I am curious about what you think should be done to bring peace to the Middle East, health care for all, and more money and programs for the poor.

Hell, if you can tell me your “plan” then maybe I might just vote for you!

This is so funny. You need to introduce me to these other people that you hate because they ask the hard questions.

By the way, Scott Lewis sent the link.

Cio!

Sindy, you gave yourself away several postings ago with this:

“… someone else emailed me a link to a different article about the same subject. They said they doubted that you would provide me with an alternate source but they wanted me to have the info.”

The only person who would have emailed you something like that is one of your fellow Freeper wingnuts who smears me on the so-called “milblogs.” Back to wingnut land with you, Sindy

Oh, and one more thing, is this board painfully slow to post on or what. Is the moderator having to hand type each post again only after translating it into three different languages and back.

You know, there are some nifty bits of technology that can help keep spam and other unwanted post off of your board. It might be worth looking into.

But don’t expect WW to provide the link.
Oh come on! That was funny!

Wow WW, calling names. That ain’t polite.

A bit of education for ya. Just because the link works for you doesn’t mean it works for everyone. It depends on Browsers, DNS setting, firewalls, and many other variables.

I didn’t realize my hate was so strong. I feel that you are Yoda and I am Vader. “The Dark side is strong in you”. I would think you are the one that needs to lighten up.

Did you think I was trying to Defend GeeDub? I apologize if that was the impression you got. I was just trying to inform you that you are blind to the fact that the party you so boldly defend is just as bad as the party you attack.

But since you are so intent on attacking things, please, tell me more about what you find wrong with the Republicans and the “Scumbag”.
And if it wouldn’t be any trouble can you please tell me what the Democrats would do differently. Please include as much detail as possible because I get tired of our current politicians speaking ambiguously. “I have a plan!” Well for the love of Lucifer, what is your plan John?

See that’s funny because I am.... Oh never mind I can’t make you laugh.

Sindy, the link I provided was a good link. It contained more links, including to the U.S. army’s publication that discussed the U.S. military’s use of white phosphorous. It’s obvious that you are a wingnut. You lied about the “bad link.” You’ve made it clear that you “hate” the two parties because neither of them is sufficiently right-wing for you.

Back to Freeperland with you, Sindy. You’re fooling no one here. Your scumbag in chief is a war criminal.

WW, WW, WW. I’m just not feeling the love. I bet if I said that I hated all Republicans and there is not a single Democrat out there that is bad, then you would accept me.

I guess you just don’t like people that refuse to tote a party line. I’ll tell you what, I will show you that I am an accepting person and I will tell everyone i know that you are a well intentioned, albeit a misguided person, but well intentioned none the less, person who is just looking for something to believe in.

If your “John Kerry For President” button makes you feel like you make a difference then good for you. Whatever it takes for you to hold your head up high.

All I ask is that you step back for a moment and take a good look at the information out there and realize that somewhere out there buried in the hype, the sensationalism, and the agendas is the truth. Believing that one party is better than the other is not going to help you find out the truth. Both parties lie and both parties are trying to further their own agenda.

It’s your job to call them on it. But as long as you defend one and bash the other, no one will take you seriously.

Oh, as far as your link, don’t worry, someone else emailed me a link to a different article about the same subject. They said they doubted that you would provide me with an alternate source but they wanted me to have the info.

Sindy, the link isn’t dead and I’m not “accepting” of your wingnut lies. Or of your “hatred.”

Wow, WW. accusing me of right wing lying. Now that isn’t very accepting. All I was asking for was some facts to back up your statement.

I get tired of people saying things because they heard it from their buddy who read in an email that asked them to pass it on to as many people as possible or else they shall grow fingernails on their tongues.

For the record I hate both Democrats and Republicans equally, so don’t feel like I am only picking on one side. The Republicans have their heads buried just as deep in the sand as the Democrats. Both sides are only worried about how much funding they can get to further their, “I’m such a caring human-being” hobbies.

We all know it’s all for show and if any of you had to actually lift a hand to help out, you would say you were to busy. It’s just so much more convenient to sound like you care.

Sindy, the link is not dead. I just re-tested it. The U.S. military acknowledged using WP in Iraq in one of its own military magazines, so you can stop your right-wing lying right now. Thank you.

WW said:
Comment #21000 by WW on 8/31 at 3:18 pm
Sindy, here’s the link:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm ------------------------------------------------

WW, sorry but the link is dead. I hope this isn’t the only reference to our “Army and Marine Corps using white phosphorous in Fallujah”!

I can’t imagine a person posting accusations based on one article found on the Internet. That’s how rumors are started.

Whisper this:

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html

Comment #21755 by Ron Roush on 9/04 at 3:42 pm

You wrote, “With the levels of apathy and de-sensitization we collectively enjoy, it may become necessary to drag our war dead through the streets of our cities, a la Mogadishu. Oh wait, it’s been done. I’m already desensitized to that one.”

The most entertaining fictional variation on your suggestion surfaced earlier this year in an episode of Showtime’s Masters of Horror series titled “Homecoming.” In it, dead Iraq-War GI’s are shipped back to US for burial, then inconveniently come back to life and go to the polls en masse to vote out the President whose policies got them killed.

Needless to say, their presence makes everyone uncomfortable and is a PR nightmare for the administration, which attempts to Swift-Boat them all. But the effort fails and the Prez’s poll numbers plummet. And the living dead just will not go away, a constantly visible and very tasteless reminder to their troop-supporting fellow citizens of the actual cost of the war.

Best bits: the President’s chief advisor gets his head ripped off by a zombie (alas, in silhouette only) and a right-wing shill for the Bush, er, fictional administration gets her head blown off by a disenchanted supporter (off-camera). Any similarity between these characters and living persons is purely coincidental, of course.

Yes, this is a mostly terrible exercise in pop agitprop---even Joe Dante, the director, described its quality as “grade C [or was it D?]"---but that’s American culture for you. Reflections on our most burning issues and their implications are found not in the print media or the cable-news punditocracy but on a late-night scare-o-rama with ostensibly no pretensions to artistic, much political, seriousness.

What we need is many more terrorists and not whimpy liberals.

WHY I AM A TERRORIST

By Charles Sullivan

09/03/06 “Information Clearing House”—- According to the twisted logic recently espoused by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, the failure to support illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars defines one as a terrorist. Let me be clear about where I stand: I know who the real terrorists are, and can name each one of them—Rumsfeld among the rest.

Everywhere you go in America you see the slogan, “Support our troops.” You see it on bumper stickers, storefronts, flags and banners, yellow ribbons and even in the windows of private homes. But what does it mean to support our troops? Is it to send them into harm’s way; to invade and occupy sovereign nations in illegal wars for empire? Is it to ask them to commit heinous crimes, to maim and to kill innocent civilians; to torture, insult, and to humiliate people who have done us no harm? Is it to steal the natural wealth that belongs to other nations and turn it over to American corporations?

If that is what it means, then I cannot support our troops. I cannot wish them well if their purpose is conquer other people, and plunder the wealth of other countries that have done us no harm. That would require me to endorse crimes against humanity conducted under the guise of national security and patriotism. I cannot do that—I will not. It is simply wrong.

Neither should we, as we so often do, confuse supporting our troops with supporting the president, or wrongful and immoral policies of corrupt government. The president and his ilk do not support our troops or he would not use them as pawns; he would take care of them when they come home broken and torn with psychic scars. He does not care about them—they are only a means to an end.

No, the best way to support our troops is to take a principled stand; to hold the moral high ground—to bring them home alive and whole. A government must not be allowed to require any of its citizens to engage in immoral or criminal behavior on its behalf. When a government behaves like a crime syndicate it does not mean that the people should follow its example—they must provide a better alternative, and refuse their allegiance to it.

So if the failure to support a government’s wrongful policies makes me a terrorist—so be it. If speaking truth to power makes one a terrorist—sign me up; move me to top of the NSA and FBI lists of suspects. Send forth the assassins with their rifles. If exposing the lies and corruption that attends power makes me a terrorist—I will proudly wear the crown and bear the cost. I will cheerfully take my place alongside other terrorists with names like Thoreau, Debs, King, Gandhi, Einstein, Zinn, and Christ.

Charles Sullivan is a photographer and free-lance writer residing in the hinterland of West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at csullivan at phreego dot com

Sadly, the question is “What will it take?” When news is broadcast about a particularly bloody day in Iraq, or the continuing erosion of civil rights, I have heard people say, “Someone should take a stand.” They don’t mean themselves, of course. They have to get on with the business of modeling their lives after the ones the marketing folks tell them to. In the meantime, they can live vicariously through the “reality” of TV. As long as there is no discomfort, they do not move. Again, what does it take? How close an acquaintance does the dead soldier have to be? The same hometown? The same neighborhood? The house next door? With the levels of apathy and de-sensitization we collectively enjoy, it may become necessary to drag our war dead through the streets of our cities, a la Mogadishu. Oh wait, it’s been done. I’m already desensitized to that one.

Nah, Scott, I don’t want you to be struck dead by anything. I was just pissed off at you. Still am. Wishing for the deaths of U.S. military personnel isn’t crossing the line, it’s pole-vaulting across the line.

As for my god, well all I can tell you is that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I am an atheist. On Tuesdays, Thurssdays and Saturdays I am agnostic. On Sundays I give it a rest on the God front. So worry not about my “prayers.”

As for your hopes for more death, your hopes offend me but they don’t worry me because, like me, you are a death taker not a death maker, at least insofar as our military personnel deployed overseas is concerned.

paul k., like I wrote before, it was only slightly in self-defense. I do think the media of e-mail and Internet postings tend to be inherently more literal than some others I can think of. And then there is America, which a favorite author of yours once described as the land of the dull and the home of the literal.

Hey W.W.  I’m still here. 
I even tempted Fate by driving the family all over this side of the state Saturday night.  I was briefly tempted to give your bloodlust a fighting chance by tossing back a vicodin and a couple of beers first, but if I get pinched for DUI I could lose my comission.
I can picture you curled up on your kitchen floor, eyes rolled back in your head, shaking and speaking in tongues, fervently demanding your god to strike me dead.  I guess my god is stronger than yours.  Plus mine made me come in second in Saturday night’s poker tournament.
Herr Lewis Uber Alles!

perhaps the determined drover in a smartly tailored uniform could sidle up to and mingle midst the throngs of fascists (as they are many) to speak in low and soothing tones of large mercedes automobiles and mass gymnastics exhibitions while steering the fascists into chutes leading directly to retirement condos, or rendering plants.

Re Comment #21544 by WW:

Curmudgeon? Like, John-Simon-style curmudgeon? Wow, blink and suddenly you’re 90! “These vulgar little guttersnipes and their subliterate yammerings on that goddam newfangled machine.” If that’s true, just pass the Geritol and make sure my wheelchair is facing away from the sun, Sonny. Got that? A-W-A-Y!

“Meanwhile, it’s probably best to think of postings and e-mails as the equivalent of telegrams. I suspect you didn’t see a whole lot of deadpan humor there, either.”

Not necessarily: humor tends to rear its unbusinesslike, immature, irresponsible head in the most unlikely places. Thus, this famous real-life telegraphic exchange:

From a Hollywood reporter to the main office: HOW OLD CAREY GRANT?

Response: CAREY GRANT JUST FINE. HOW YOU?

OK, probably funnier 50 years ago than it is today, but you get my point. The world is divided between those who see the world in terms of Serious Issues and act with approprate decorum, and those who see those same issues and act, well, immaturely and irresponsibly, i.e., with humor.  We’re not making fun of those Serious Issues; we’re making fun out of them. “Americans think that to be serious one must also be solemn."---Gore Vidal, famous curmudgeon.

Speaking of which:"WW, I don’t think wishing for anyone to get into a car and kill themselves (or wishing for the death of their family members) is a mature or responsible expression of whatever frustration you may feel towards Scott’s comments. Shame on you.”

Ouch, that’s gotta hurt. Ax? Try machete. Here’s a box of Band-Aids for those cuts. Note: better have a doc check out the one above your right eye. It looks infected.

So. . .Feeling a little curmudgeonly yourself?

The Internet may be a new medium, but it’s not that new, and, graphics aside, its main mode of communication--language---isn’t. In the blogosphere, some of us will continue using the resources of language to amuse ourselves, whether these resources accord with the just-the-facts-Ma’am ethos of the Net or not. As for those who respond in kind, well, we few, we few, we happy few.

As it happens, some of my e-mails, like those of my friends, are of the do-this do-that variety; some are not. As for postings, I just read some comments on Digby’s Hullabaloo site and the more deadpan the remarks, the louder I laughed.

So if the Net continues to “develop” at the normal (glacial) rate of evolution, I guess the more easily bored among us will have to skip a few rungs in our ascent of the ole Darwinian ladder and just hope that eventually the rest will be able to catch up.

re; paul white

As a mother of an active duty xxxxxxxxxxxxx, I do consider you to be a murderer and a hypocrite.  if my son were to die tomorrow, I will think of “you personally”, realizing that you contributed to his death:

failing to acknowledge and CORRECT the major screw-up decisions that we endured and CONTINUE to endure. Support of a full blown civil war at present.  The lists runs deep, so I’ll stop here.

I’m acutely aware more than most, of the vietnam history, as one foot step away 4 * x 3 sat @ my dinner table for years during our past history.

Please don’t cause me any more heart pain by your destructive language.

As a family we have shed a millions tears over this war hell, with truth known (of which you know little) of all the dirty lies.  Have you been in Iraq?

Mother of US Special Forces Soldier
d-green
green
rangers
seals

Sadly most are not able to understand the stock market, let alone manager their own 401k’s.  Hencefore, many don’t realize the financial dirty strings behind the window dressing, until it is to late.  I fully agree with the floor trader who has graciously tried to educate you.

and a final thought or 2:
when the xxxxx cross under dow you don’t fly on airplanes! At present, this is true since early august.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/09/04/stories/20060904044714 00.htm

And here I’m the one who cautioned against deadpan humor on the Internet. Didn’t take long to be sliced with my own axe, did it?

Molly, will you marry me?  My wife loves you too.
Keep up the good fight..

‘Troop Supporter’...it sounds like something one puts on before gym class.

WW, I don’t think wishing for anyone to get into a car and kill themselves (or wishing for the death of their family members) is a mature or responsible expression of whatever frustration you may feel towards Scott’s comments. Shame on you.
I think Scott’s words, while certainly not eliquent or delicate, raise a good point-the majority of people in the United States will not react until properly motivated by their conscience. Unfortunately, the public is being spoon fed this war in dynamic a/v bites set to exciting music, reported from the front line to the beat of artillery shells. What the people should be seeing are more images of the horrors of the war. Show the dead soldiers coming home to crying mothers. Show civilian casualties with missing limbs. Who can forget the footage of the young Palestinian girl on the beach hysterical with grief because her family got taken out by an Israeli missle? If that doesn’t make one want all wars to end, I don’t know what could. The people who need to see these honest images, the aggressors usually don’t. Instead Al Jazirah airs them and extremists use them as evidence of the injustices done to (insert name of bombed civilians here) at the hands (insert name of occupying aggressor here).
War is horrible. War is terrible. I think if more people could see the pain it causes, they would be less willing to send their children off to die. Micheal Moore did it best when he asked a US congressman (or senator, I can’t recall which) if he supported the war. The politician said he did, 100%. Michael Moore than asked him if he would fill out a registration form and sign his child up to join the army and go fight. The politician quickly turned and fled. He supports the war, but not at the price of his own child.

Scott Lewis, we got your point before. Something tells me you’re a “Freeper” (devotee of the the far-right site, FreeRepublic.com) in disguise, trying to discredit opponents of the Iraq War.

Meantime, if you really wish for death as much as you say you do, have you thought about climbing into a car, stepping on the gas and heading for the nearest bridge abutment? The tragedy of your highway death just might avert others.

Deadpan humor tends not to work on the Internet because the average Internet message is businesslike. It’s a fairly literal realm, not a literary one. Novels allow an author the room to develop a voice, and performing arts simply convey more information, i.e., facial expressions and tone of voice.

Some people use those cheesy “emoticons” on the Internet, and frankly even though I hate ‘em sometimes I use them for fear that my intent will be misunderstood. Maybe as the medium develops you’ll see more deadpan humor, but in the meantime I think it’s risky.

Oh, and it’s not the kids’ fault. Stop being such a curmudgeon. The Internet is a new medium. It’ll take a while to figure out what works and what doesn’t. Meanwhile, it’s probably best to think of postings and e-mails as the equivalent of telegrams. I suspect you didn’t see a whole lot of deadpan humor there, either.

Re Comment #21148 by WW: You’re right, of course, although I’m regularly amazed at how many people today completely miss (or misread) the tone and intent of standard (hardcopy) literary texts by the ironists/satirists I cut my once-sharp increasingly carious little teeth on---authors such as Gore Vidal, Terry Southern, Bruce Jay Friedman, etc., plus Golden Oldies like Swift and Evelyn Waugh. What those clases in Creative Writing call “the authorial voice” is something I think you can hear as you become increasingly familiar with such authors----the inflections of Vidal’s patrician purr or Waugh’s bilious snarl.

Oddly, many of the Gen-X-and-Y-ers I know often can’t seem to hear that kind of voice any more, even though they were supposedly raised in an irony-saturated environment where everything was enclosed with get-it air quotes accompanied by a knowing wink. In fact, many of them tell me they find the writers I mentioned head-scratchingly “mean-spirited.” (Can’t you be nicer, Mr. Vidal?) I guess it’s a whole new sensibility, more oriented toward the image than the word.

(But on the other hand I find the acidulous satire of Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Office mostly bracingly hilarious, or hilariously bracing, and there must be some under-30-ers laughing along with me, so, really, what do I know?)

Gentlemen,
My point is that we are obviously fighting this war not to win it but just to sustain it.  The combined military might of the most powerful nation on the planet is getting its head handed to it by a third-world nothing of a country with no real government, no industrial infrastructure, and no standing army.  Our administration has decided that the Iraq war is either good for them politically or economically (perhaps both).  The tragedy is that we as a people will not demand a change until the price has become too great.  Therefore in order to stop the slaughter soon we must hope that it advances quickly.  I think the genius of the Bush administration has been the stop-loss orders and the involuntary recalls of the national guard.  All the pain, the heartache, the suffering, the terror and the death is being put on the same small persentage of America, over and over again.  Most of us have felt no real pain associated with this fiasco.  We pretend that we do as we watch the television, but we are not the ones crying ourselves to sleep and cursing the day we encouraged our child to join the military.  As more and more US soldiers get killed the military will have to add fresh ones into the conflict.  If enough GI’s get killed, and enough new ones are sent as replacements, then the American public will finally begin to examine and appreciate the cost of this folly.  Any step that takes us as a country closer to the end of war must be seen as a cause for celebration.  Therefore the death (while tragic) of every American Soldier must also be seen as a cause for celebration.  If one soldier sacrifices himself to save another he is lauded as a hero.  If he sacrifices his life so that all of his fellow soldiers may live shouldn’t he be held in even higher esteem?

I hear you, Freedem.

Living with religio-crazies, no matter the flavor, is a scary damn proposition. When they gain power and start going to war with one another, it’s far worse. People will do far more evil in the name of religion than just about anything else in the world; the exception being everyones’ favorite graven image, money.

The current global nightmare involves both, of course. Most nightmares do.

The lunatics have the keys to the asylum.

God help us!

paul kibble: mea culpa. In (slight) self-defense, I’d point out that deadpan humor often falls flat in electronic communication, a lesson I’ve learned from time to time.

I cannot say I am antiwar, any more than most from the soldiers who have to put their own hide on the line to those like Molly or Cindy, would simply roll over in the face of a real threat.

That Cindy has put her own hide in real danger and discomfort when there were many other options is hardly the mark of a coward much less a quitter.

One thing most honorable folk can agree about is to be anti-stupid. Anti-Ignorant is a harder sell as so many have personal commitments and there is such a massive campaign to increase those levels.

No matter the situation, the American people are supposed to be the ultimate Commanders in Chief, and to abandon that post is as wrong as for any in their employ to do the same. A committee of a few hundred million is clumsy, and each will have a different take on how to do that job, but there is no vice in honorably pursuing it.

There is plenty ignorance and stupidity to go around, but that said, it is not all equal. Osama’s attack on the Towers was stupid in that it went a very long way to wrecking his goals.

Even in Iran there was sympathy, and it temporarily advanced the secularists against crazy Mullahs. Smart, thoughtful, realistic, leaderly, action by America, could have made America the real hero of the World, and done much to advance every good Ideal America was famous for. Sadly that was not an apt description of SCOTUS’s choice and Osama’s stupidity was trumped, doubled, and redoubled, And from ashes, Osama’s cause was advanced beyond his wildest dreams.

Like Osama there are crazy Mullahs in this country who would mirror Osama’s policy goals in nearly every particular but the name of their Religion, book, and language (even hijacking the same God). Theofacists on both sides advance their agenda by the war and everyone else, Iraqi, American, even Chinese, or African is damaged by it.

Does that mean America should abandon the field to the Theofascist threat? Absolutely not! But the American Theofascist would have us escape the hole by digging through the bottom, because that is the stupidity their agenda calls for. They traitorously wish the war be carried on in the worst way. They secretly celebrate the mayhem, and death they cause, because with each death on either side Christians are pushed toward their perverted Christianity, and Muslims are pushed to the more perverted forms of that faith.

The only Non-Ignorant answer is to unite the planet against ALL Theofascist frauds no matter the details. It that anti war? No. It is prowar for the war that will be fought now or later, and will be longer and harder than any fought till now. But it is anti the fake war that strips our ability to fight the real threat, even as it makes that very threat stronger.

Does it need to be fought with guns? I hope not. But that may come to pass if we can not solve the problem in a smarter way. Gandhi was not nonviolent because he did not believe in fighting, he used nonviolence because that was his smartest tool. He knew what Osama did not, that doing evil, created evil, and forfeited the moral high ground to the enemy, and gave away the support he most needed.

The Thuggi had tried the other path for essentially the same goal and lost everything, so even their name became synonymous with evil. Fortunately for Osama, the American Theofacists did exactly what was needed to make him a hero in the lands he wanted to fight from.

It is not hurting morale to speak of what any soldier can see better than those at home. In WW2 stupidity was an issue even as the war was as just as it gets, and while some was successfully covered up, that was not National policy and much was exposed and dealt with at the time.

What hurts morale most, in ‘Nam or Iraq is the cognitive dissonance to hear all the happy talk while the reality around you screams it a lie. When much needed equipment is missing from your own stuff, even as billions are wasted on crones, and they even chisel on your meager pay, no amount of “Support Our Troops” happy talk can suffice.

What will help morale most is to finally oppose the real enemy in a way that is smart and honorable. When that happens every soldier will have the strength of ten because it will feel right.

Re Comment #20891 by WW:

Apparently you didn’t pick up on the blatantly ironic/satiric tone of my references to the “bad PR” implications of Scott Lewis’ ideas for “celebration.” I thought I was wielding my pen with all the finesse of a sledgehammer, but you obviously took my remarks quite literally, even though I hedged my bet by first describing Lewis’ suggestion as “obscene” and “crazy.”

To cure this irony-free condition, may I suggest that you read Swift’s A Modest Proposal? In it, the Dean suggests that the Irish poor learn to control their population problem by eating their own children. Sample: ”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

Had you been his contemporary, would you have chastised Swift for his tasteless “pro-cannabalistic” stance? Context and tone matter, WW.

Sindy, here’s the link:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm

Sindy, check this link:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm

Ah, the vitriol spewing forth and being recorded on blogs will be fodder for a whole generation of future social scientists ... I would think particularly on how certain ideas evoke a predictable response ...

But Molly, you are on to something ... and we are learning these things from separate sources ... fractals suggest that the patterns of the small events of the cosmos are repeated in the large events (or is it the reverse? ... or does the “direction” matter?) ... chaos theory suggests that small events CAN move mountains (but then, we’ve heard THAT before) ...

Might I suggest those who haven’t discovered “What the bleep do we know?” yet, do so now?

http://www.whatthebleep.com/whatthebleep/

Peace begats peace. Violence begats violence. (In keeping with GW reintroducing us to the verb in the past tense, “begat”.)

Maybe Jesus knew what he was talking about.

WW~
You said, “Army and Marine Corps using white phosphorous in Fallujah”

I did not know that. Can you please give us more info about that. I would like you to cite the articles on this. I find it very interesting.

Thanks,
Sindy

No need to discuss whether or not Scott Lewis’s celebration of G.I. deaths in Iraq is bad public relations. In fact, it offends me that people who, like me, oppose the Iraq War would even discuss his attitude from that angle. It implies that if it was good p.r., we’d be o.k. with it.

Lewis’s celebration is sick and twisted, period. It’s no better than Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney’s decision to use torture. It’s no better than the Army and Marine Corps using white phosphorous in Fallujah, or various units committing murder against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s no better than the U.S. decision to destroy Iraq to save it.

War is a horrible, ugly enterprise. There are times when it’s necessary to enter one, but it should always be a last resort, and the death and destruction it brings are never cause for celebration. The idea that this Scott Lewis character would call himself anti-war is ludicrous. At least in spirit, he’s as pro-war as anyone I’ve seen on line.

To #20697 Paul K.

Oh contraire!  A 1-A-O Selective Service Classification in 1968 means the exact opposite of what you suggest.  How about being a medic on the FRONT LINE during combat, wearing, by the way, a highly visible white vest with a red cross on it (front and back).  Talk hand-to-hand combat (just no gun).  My life expectancy at the time was three weeks.  Guess whom the Vietcon shot first?  Sorry Paul, but you do not know what you are talking about.

Paul White
In the Right

Re Comment #20747 by Scott Lewis:

I am absolutely opposed to our continued occupation of Iraq (just as I was opposed to our initial invasion), but your suggesion that “the death of every American soldier should be a cause for celebration” is. . gosh, I dunno, what is the word? “Obscene,” maybe. Or “crazy.” Yeah, that, too.

Philosophically (as it were), your scheme to galvanize our dozing fellow citizens into consciousness is a variant of the old Leninist maxim that to make an omlette you gotta break a few eggs. (The real-world application of that maxim worked out so well for the Russian people, didn’t it?)

But on a more pragmatic level, it’s, you know, a really dumb PR move, this idea that we should all be dancing in the streets every time another GI gets shipped home in a box. I mean, we’re talking the worst kind of negative publicity here, the kind that makes someone like John Mark Karr look like a goddam altar boy in comparison. Might wanna rethink the implications of your lee-tle ongoing Festival of Death. 

By the by, there’s an almost sadistic glee in your suggestion, combined with a transparent wish to punish anyone who doesn’t agree with you---For Their Own Good, of course. ("This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.” Oh, you betcha.) So, yeah, bring on the body bags! That’ll teach ‘em!

Anyway. . ."Celebration"? Really? Exactly how do you suggest we “celebrate”? You’re kinda short on specifics, Scott. Here’s my modest proposal: we gather at Arlington and stage a mass piss-in on the graves of those who have died in Iraq.

Better yet, why stop there?  Piss on all the frigging graves. That kind of big symbolic gesture is guaranteed to wake up all them semicomatose masses out there in the heartland, huh? Tell you what: you bring the party hats, I’ll take care of the booze.

P.S.: Maybe we could invite the friends and families of those dead GI’s, too.  I know some of them, and, believe me, they’re always up for a good time, between sessions of grief counseling and just trying to put their sad dim little lives back together.

Hang on, that’s Cindy Sheehan on the line and, guess what? Seems she’s heard about your idea and is, like, totally into it. Planning? I’m all over it! Let’s schedule it for Memorial Day. (Irony---get it?)

Hey, gotta jet. Be there or be square, Bro!

Scott, here’s hoping your famaily gets killed by a drunken driven next Saturday night. It just might be the death that will trigger a major effort to reduce drunken driving.

If you mean to imply that I have ever been in any danger of being forced to speak Arabic or Kurdish you are sorely mistaken.  Iraq was never a credible threat to the United States or to our way of life.  Trying to compare a tiny third-world country to WWII Germany and Japan is such a strech as to border on lunacy.  If you really think that what we are doing in Iraq will preserve our freedoms then why are our freedoms going away?  Will we need to turn our own country into a totalitarian state in order to prevent another country from doing so?

Well, I feel the need to weigh in on Scott.

Scott, your view is very twisted regardless of your position on Iraq.  However, I personally believe your words are meant only to shock and that you haven’t really put too much thought into them.  It’s a sad reality that there are men and women who would gladly go into harms way to save your right to to blather.  But that’s what makes them so absolutely superior to you.

Sam
.
.

Scott, you can go to hell!  Your sick way with words is repugnant and exactly what I’d expect from a communist, islamic extremist, or other enemy of the state.  If it weren’t for soldiers willing to risk their lives on the fields of combat, you’d be speaking, at the very least, with an English accent, at best Japanese or German.

I think the problem here is that the American public has shown that they will happily accept US military casualties until the total reaches 58,226.  So with that in mind, I feel that the death of every American soldier should be a cause for celebration.  It is a terrible thing that so many of them must be killed before the American people stand up and say “enough”, but the reality is that every US soldier killed in Iraq is helping in the only way possible to bring the rest of his brothers home.

Molly,
If you and your ilk are so intelligent that you know how to keep the peace or create peace then you should go to Iraq, Korea and wherever Islamic radicals are so you can show just how smart you really are by talking to these people. But if you refuse to go there, obviously you are just a coward hiding behind words and I suggest that you look up intelligent in the dictionary and see what it says because you obviously have no clue.

Ole Rush reminds me of Herr Streicher of the Third Reich, convicted at Nuremburg and then hung.

To WW #20687:

Now see, that’s what I’m talking about.  I have no problems with you as someone who doesn’t support the war but truly supports the troops.  I thank you for that.  I would never trash talk you or your efforts.  They are legitimate and heartfelt.  I feel supported and understand your position on the war. 

To Aimee #20647:

This is why I don’t like the term “anti-war”.  It assumes that the other side is “pro-war”.  I’m not pro-war even though I’m a soldier.  There are actually very few of us in the military that would be described as “pro-war”.  After all, WE’RE the ones who have to fight and die in those things.  I’ve often said there is no better peace activist than the soldier. 

However, I also don’t believe that violence can be solved with peace.  If someone punches me in the nose, I MAY not hit back the first time.  But you punch me again and it’s on till you are no longer a threat to me.  If that’s considered pro-war, well…

Personally I think your refusal to be around “pro-war” type people is close minded.  I love being around and debating and discussing things with “anti-war” people.  I’ve learned a lot about how they came to their decisions.  I’ve actually come to sympathize with them on issues. 

As a matter of fact, when Cindy Sheehag FIRST hit the American spot light I wrote her an open letter of support.  I figured she had a right to feel the way she did and I tried to console her as a fellow soldier.  I truly felt bad for her, having lost buddies next to me while I was there.  I’m one of only a few who survived a particular artillery strike and still carry the guilt.  However, she’s morphed into something that I can’t recognize.  Her son went without a tombstone for way too long.  I was offended by that.  She aligned herself with the wrong people and allowed the attention to go to her head.

Anyway, I hate to just cut this off, but I don’t feel like continuing…

To Bill E.:

My reference to you not understanding about “supporting the troops” wasn’t a slight to your intelligence, indeed many intelligent people fail to see things from another’s point of view; and you did miss my point completely.  That is partially my fault for tenor of my comment, but I do not apologize.  As far as caring if you engage me in dialogue, or think I am significant in any way, I simply do not care.

Sam
.
.

Comment #20602 by paul white:

1. Academic credentials are irrelevant to debating the key issues here. A piece of sheepskin does not automatically confer intelligence, much less common sense. Thus while I could offer an itemized list that included my two doctorates and related professional accomplishments, nothing in this self-congratulatory C.V. proves that I can think about the questions under discussion clearly. (But of course I can!) As Dwight Macdonald used to say, “There are plenty of ignoramuses with PhD’s.” (But of course I’m not one of them!) Brains are in short supply everyhere, both within and outside the Graves (sic) of Academe. I’m afraid these same caveats apply to you.

2. Probably the most revealing part of your post is this little confession: “Believe it or not, I was a registered 1-A-O (Selective Service classification).  That means I was a selective conscientious objector serving in the military, but refusing to carry a gun.”

Oh, I believe it, all right. Hey, maybe it wasn’t exactly a Daddy-arranged safe haven like the Texas Air National Guard, but clearly it did the job. No Ron Kovac (or one of those decorative white crosses) here!

No, as you note, a classification of 1-A-O means you were exempted from combatant military training and service and assigned noncombatant duties. In short, you’ve never seen the big red one (tip of the hat to Sam Fuller) up close and personal---just like chickenhawks Georgie, Cheney ("Other priorities!"), Rummy or the other armchair terminators who were/are so willing to use others as bullet bait on the killing fields of Nam or Iraq.

An 1-A-O classification also means that, as the Selective Service website helpfully informs us, you would have had to establish that your “request for exemption from combatant military training and service in the Armed Forces is based upon his conscientious objection to participation in war in any form, and that he is sincere in his claimed beliefs.”

Likewise, you would have had to “establish that by reason of moral, ethical or religious beliefs,” you were “conscientiously opposed to. . .participation in combatant training and service. Such beliefs do not include views that are essentially political, sociological or philosophical in nature, or those which rest solely on his on self-interest or well-being.”

Further, you would have had to “explain fully to the board how” your “conscience reacts to training in the use of guns and other weapons designed for combatant military use.” You could also have presnted witnesses “aware of [your] conscientious and sincere opposition to participation in war.”

If “based on religious training,” you probably had a chance to “explain fully the nature of the religious teachings” and you may even have brought in your “minister or some other church official. . .knowledgeable of the teachings” of your church or presented written statements from them.

If your opposition was “based on ethical or moral beliefs,” you probably “discuss[ed] these beliefs,” and indicated “where and how” you came by them and “what effect they have had” on you.. As with religious objections, you may even have introduced “witnesses who know of these beliefs and of the effect” they have had on you.

So now, some 30 or so years later, the guy whose “conscience reacted” with such touching sincerity “to training in the use of guns and other weapons designed for combatant military use” is willing at the drop of a turban to pick up that shotgun or Magnum or whatever (at least in his head) and blow away those invading towelheads. (30 years ago, it would have been the Commies---remember the domino theory? Or the earlier version of the same paranoia: Cuba is only 90 miles from our shore!)

Yes indeed, some 30 or so years later, the conscientious objector who for religious, moral, or ethical reasons refused to pick up a gun or partcipate in war has become the (safely) virtual warrior helping usher all those hapless 18-to-25-year-old grunts out there from this world into the next. As the old hymn has it, “This world is not my home/ I’m just a-passin’ through.” Whassup, Jesus, hope I’m not too early!

In short, with a Good Christian/fundie hypocrisy worthy of your coreligionist Dubya, the guy who managed to keep his ass off the battlefields of Southeast Asia is now a blood-and-guts gunghoist---an “attack poodle,” in James Wolcott’s all-too-accurate description. What a convenient change of heart, now that you’re well past an age when you could serve as a reasonable facsimile of cannon fodder. What’s that old saw?: “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” Thanks for the tribute, Paul! It was so deeply moving. But then so is a high colonic.

Oh, and as for reading bin Laden’s manifesto? “I am not a fascist or Communist, or liberal, so I would have no reason to read Bin Laden.” Of you wouldn’t---apart from something called intellectual curiosity, clearly a trait that you’ve managed to do without for some time. I’m not a fascist or a Communist or a liberal either, but I’ve read Osama’s pronunciamento. I also read James Dobson’s Focus on the Family Newsletter every week, as well as the National Review Online, Commentary, etc. The opinions contained in these documents are culturally and ideologically antipathetic to every value I cherish, but I operate on one simple principle: know your enemy.

But you obviously don’t want to know much of anything, the enemy included. Why go to the actual sources when you can settle for a Fox soundbite, which is always 100%-guaranteed fair and balanced?

You apparently don’t read much, either, except the Holy Babble. That’s all right: authentic literacy is often a hindrance to blind faith, be it religious or political. Open yourself to other viewpoints, start thinking analytically, and that Blessed Assurance might go up in smoke. Then the world gets so, you know,. . . complicated. Damn those liberals and their niggling, nuance-loving distinctions. Life is so much more manageable in black. . .and, um, white, White.

I realize that ignorance is bliss, but, really you seem to be stretching the point. “The overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens (CNN reports n otwithstanding) are grateful for what we did and are doing there.” “CNN reports [along with many others] notwithstanding”? The hell with facts: I know what those Iraqis really think, just like deep in my heart I really know Jesus is coming again (really, really soon, it would seem). O ye of little faith!

Anyway, thanks for taking the time and effort to individually poll the entire Iraqi populace! I’m sure Messrs. Gallup and Harris will be curious to know exactly what sampling techniques you used to arrive at this sweeping generalization. Alas, actual surveys indicate the majority of Iraqi citizens want us gone ASAP.

And on that point, if you actually did read a newspaper occasionally, you’d find that many conservative Republicans as well as that beloved “silent majority"---thanks for resurrecting that Nixon-era chestnut---aren’t quite so silent about our Bungler-in-Chief’s conduct of the war.

As Joe conason reports, “Support for the Bush administration’s conduct of the war, and for the President himself, has been declining steadily, in fact, since the end of 2004. . . .”

Conason continues: “[L]et’s look at the numbers found by recent surveys. In June, CNN and USA Today separately asked Americans—not Democrats and not left-wing bloggers—whether they favor a ‘timetable’ or ‘plan’ for withdrawing from Iraq. Fifty-three percent said yes to CNN, and 57 per cent said yes to USA Today. Both polls were taken within days or weeks after the killing of Al Qaeda terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the latest advertised ‘turning point’ in the war.”

“Those jaundiced views of the war—which at its outset did enjoy broad public support—have not changed over the past two months. ABC News and The Washington Post jointly conducted a poll last week that asked whether Americans approve or disapprove of the Bush administration’s handling of ‘the situation in Iraq.’ Thirty-six percent approve, while 62 percent do not.”

“That same ABC/Washington Post poll found 59 percent felt the war had not been worth the cost, 64 percent felt the Bush administration had no clear plan for victory, and 53 percent felt the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased. By a plurality of 38 percent, respondents said that a Congressional candidate who supports the Bush policy would be ‘less likely’ to get their vote. Most remarkably, although 66 percent said that Democrats have no clear position on the war, a slight plurality of 43 percent said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to do ‘a better job’ in Iraq.”

“A CBS News poll came up with much the same result in late July. So did a Gallup poll taken around the same time. And similarly negative results have appeared in polls taken for Fox News, the Associated Press and the Harris Organization, among others. If more than half of the public supports withdrawal from Iraq, and nearly two-thirds disapproves of the President and his policy, then that must be the ‘mainstream’ position.”

“The neoconservatives are not only factually wrong in their domestic politics but conceptually wrong in their geopolitics. To be ‘strong on national security’ does not mean supporting the misconceived and incompetently executed policies of the Bush administration. American security in years to come will depend, in fact, on undoing this government’s grave mistakes, which have weakened this country’s military posture and undermined support for us around the world. Terrorism experts across the spectrum, from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat, agree that the ‘struggle against violent extremism’ has suffered from the foolish decision to invade and occupy Iraq.”

Sorry, Paul. You backed the wrong horse.

Footnote: For the record, I was raised by Good Christians and am happy to report I am now a card-carrying atheist. I dislike all religions, but especially those in the Abrahamic tradition---Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I especially dislike Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that many tenets of Mohammed’s gift to Western Civ make it in many ways a cult of death. Unlike your (and formerly my) faith, with its Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, and general obscurantism, Islam was isolated from the Satan-inspired incursions of the Enlightenment.

As a result, today we can still see, for vexample, a Chechen women accused of adultery (yes, it’s not just in the Middle East)branded with a painted green cross on her forhead, stripped, and beaten in public for her alleged violation of the Koranic code. Although Christianity also hates all but “submissive” women/wives, at least we no longer force our erring spouses to wear scarlet letters on their chests. (Men are never likewise punished, since it was of course Eve who caused the Fall.)

Unfortunately, we need someone in power who knows how to fight Islamic fanatics effectively. Bush isn’t that person. Lucky for me that so many in your Rightie camp now agree with me.

To BillE #20667:

I don’t agree with Samantha West’s characterization of Iraq War opponents (the majority of the country, by the way) as people who are bent on destroying the U.S. rather than building it. I also disagree with her when she says it’s not supporting the troops to argue against a particular deployment. I would say exactly the opposite, in fact: If you think a deployment is the wrong thing to do, then you’re obligated to speak against it.

However, I think your response in which you complained about “abuse the slights to their intelligence” was foolish. Samantha West hasn’t “abused” anyone here.

Other comments:

To CJ, if in fact the Code Pink people have called you a murderer that’s an unspeakable act. It’s so offensive that I have a hard time believing that it has happened at Walter Reed, but if you’ve got a video of them doing it there then post the link. I don’t think they should be there to begin with, much less say crap like that.

A military hospital is not the place to protest the war. Nor is a letter to a soldier in the field. I sent packages through AnySoldier.com and the enclosed letter doesn’t mention any politics whatsoever. It thanks them for their willingness to face hostile fire, and wishes them a safe trip home. Period.

Is the Iraq War a debacle? Hell yes it is. The numbers of ddead and wounded have little to do with that assessment. The Liar-in-Chief started this thing on a series of pretexts. He has lied at every stage since going in. He’s been reckless and incompetent. And now we are stuck. The only reason I might not want to call it a “debacle” is because too many people might think that word is too high-falutin’

I think disaster, or maybe Bush’s Clusterf*ck, would be better.

“He Ain’t No Prince O’ Peace!

YO NATION: LET’S NOT FORGET THE ‘DUBYA WHI$PERER’--GOP ‘CEO’ DR. LOU ($iffur)--In the DEtail$...BIGtime...now put the Sign O’ the Dollar ‘gainst the Sign O’ the Cross? guess which stands & which falls in THAT face-off...it’s HOu$e Bushelzebubba...got it?”

Rev. Hogtie Potus (Cowboy Noir)
from: Pulpit Nonfiction for a Change

YOU didn’t carry a gun and YOU are supporting BUSH incompetence while sending soldiers to be MURDERED? Just what was your MOS?

Y O U H Y P O C R A T E

You stated and I quote:

“That means I was a selective conscientious objector serving in the military, but refusing to carry a gun. “

RE:Comment #20548 by Samantha West on 8/29 at 9:17 pm

Sam, I have to start off with YIKES!

Just a couple of things. Dissent in time of war (especially in time of war) is an inheritably patriotic act. Blind support of any action by a government is the first step toward living in a tyranny.

Beyond that, I do support our troops. I constantly advocate for better pay, equipment and on going care, not only for those wounded in action, but for all of those that do and have worn the uniform of our country.

I understand that they go when told to, this is the agreement that they made when they choose to serve, and that is why they deserve our support and respect. But that does not mean that I have to respect the choices of those that send them to missions that have poor planning and poor oversight. I support the troops by never supporting wars of choice; by never thinking that it is okay for us to send them to under-defined missions, without clear goals, without realistic planning for winning the peace as well as conquering our enemies.

That is true support of the troops. Unlike the jingoistic posturing and shrill reminders that our freedom has been assured by our fellow citizens actions on the field of battle throughout our history.

On a personal note, name calling is seems to be the first and last resort of those that have a losing argument. While I find your points unpersuasive the extreme, I don’t think that you deserve the same low level of civility that you show in your response to me.

While I have taken you seriously enough to send time responding to your points, why should anyone bother with conversation with you, when all they get is abuse and slights to their intelligence? Isn’t that what Molly was writing about in the first place?

Cheers,

Paul White:

If you want to know why we have enemies, it’s not because we’re American with hope and money. Osama came from a billionaire family.

You talk alot about reading. Read BLOWBACK by Chalmers Johnson. Americans have been meddling in the affiars of other nations under the horizon of the American public since the end of WW2. Lots of it very nasty stuff both by Democrats and Republicans. They’re tired of it. We wouldn’t tolerate it happening in the US and you wouldn’t tolerate it with your family.

Isn’t there a Bible verse that says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” There is. We are getting done to us what we’ve been doing and continue to do to them. Read the THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILSATION by Robert Fisk if you want to see the folly of US policies in the ME. Having an advanced degree from Brown you should be able to get through its 1100 pages.

Intrinsically, the turmoil in the ME has nothing to do with being American or having hope or money. The British were in the same situation before the US was. Do you realize the British were dying in Basra nearly 100 years ago for essentially the same reasons? Back then you would’ve said it was because we are British with money and hope. Before that, it is because we are Ottomans.

However, the Iraqis do have hope… that Americans will take their money and go home while there is such a thing as Iraq left to leave. Where are all the mighty empires in the ME that preceded the American Empire? Their blood has long since dried in the hot sand and blown away. This too is the fate of the US Empire. And guess what, this also is in your Bible.

Truth be known Paul, the bulls**t emanates from the Connecticut Cowboy.

I am strongly against the Iraq War. I think Bush lied his way in on the basis of WMD that didn’t exist and a fictional Saddam-al Qaeda connection. The human rights argument is a sick joke in light or the torture policy. To top it off, the whole effort has been horrendously mismanaged. If it were up to me, the U.S. would withdraw, impeach Bush and Cheney and hold war crimes trials.

That said, I am equally disdainful of the “Code Pink” protests outside of Walter Reed. They are presenting a caricature of anti-Iraq War sentiment. Demonstrations are always symbolic acts, and to hold them outside of a facility housing wounded veterans is brainless.

The wounded inside of Walter Reed should not be told by the people outside that their efforts were for nothing—even if that’s the case, as I believe. It’s cruel to do that. Or to quote my second grade teacher, “There is a time and a place, and this is not the time or the place.”

Cindy Sheehan is another pointless protester. A year ago, I supported her activities. But she has milked her son’s death for long enough, and should now find something else to do.