 |
|
||
|
|
|
 Gore and Sheehan Join ForcesPosted on May 30, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—They are an unlikely couple. She, an exhausted and emotionally spent woman limping home to find solace in a measure of solitude she could have given herself long ago. He, an upbeat and oh-so-confident man who once was down but is now anything but out. Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan has announced her “retirement” as an icon of the movement against the Iraq war, a conflict that took the life of her son, Casey, and catapulted Sheehan into a chaotic and often cruel journey through the ugly precincts of political activism in the age of Bush. Al Gore has launched another book, “The Assault on Reason.” In it he indulges his penchant for intellectualism alongside his utter horror at the degradation of politics and the destructive policies he lays at the White House door. These have their roots, Gore argues, in the deceits and manipulations President Bush and his administration practiced, artfully and dangerously, for too long and with too little consequence. Besides their opposition to the Iraq misadventure, the two have little in common, other than having borne the contempt of a media culture that finds them easy targets for ridicule. Now they return the sentiment. The media turned its gaze on Sheehan when she launched vigils along the dusty road leading to Bush’s vacation ranch in Crawford, Texas. For a time back in August of 2005, she was a serendipitous gift to reporters during the slow-news days of summer. You couldn’t conjure up a better story than that of a grieving mother braving heat and all manner of other indignities to confront the president whose war had taken her son’s life. The “Camp Casey” drama was one of the first public manifestations of what hadn’t fully emerged yet as a deepening of public dissatisfaction over Iraq. Sheehan was an overnight celebrity. Advertisement Nearly two years later, and after a descent into the clutch of radical politics, Sheehan’s “resignation” letter lashes out equally at left-wing commentators who she says heaped the same abuse upon her once she held the Democratic Party to account for its role in sustaining the war. Sheehan’s letter is a rambling account of her journey to disillusion. But amid the pain is a truth that has no ideology: “Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months. ... “ It is a complaint I’ve heard from returning Iraq veterans, who are astonished at the trivial info-tainment that passes for news at home. It is echoed by Gore, who laments in his book that “it is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse.” Starting with the O.J. Simpson trial, Gore recites the “serial obsessions” that dominate coverage—and so help define what the public thinks is important. You know their names: JonBenet and the “Runaway Bride,” Natalie Holloway and Michael Jackson. “And of course,” Gore writes, “we can’t forget Britney and KFed and Lindsay and Paris and Nicole.” While these noisy psychodramas got saturation coverage, Gore says, “our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions” on war and peace, climate change and other issues. Gore, the scold, is a familiar character in his own political saga—the same fellow who was ridiculed for sighing audibly during a 2000 presidential campaign debate. But, like Sheehan, he speaks a truth: The country didn’t make so many bad decisions—about Iraq, global warming, torture or the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists—in the absence of information about these policies and their historic consequences. It ignored what information was available. For this “absence of reason” Gore offers no antidote—nor does anyone. He suggests that more political discourse be conducted over the Internet, which happens to be where some of the vilest commentary and wildest conspiracy theories circulate. Eventually these peculiar dark ages will end. We can only hope historians see them as an aberration, not an early marker of decline. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
How the Anti-Semites of Hezbollah Have Sent Anne Frank Back Into Hiding
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
By Marshall, June 9, 2007 at 4:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
#76557 by Skruff on 6/09 at 4:49 am
You have. Youre paying less in federal taxes than you did before the tax cuts.
“No, in 1968 dollars Im paying about twice what I was paying through the Seventies.”
I can’t speak to the tax code from the 60’s and 70’s, but this administration’s tax cuts gave you some relief anyway.
“The Standard deduction is worth 1/3 of its 1968 value”
Standard deduction is actually indexed to inflation, but you may still be right.
“The tax code is the only area where one is expected to use standard math, BUT 2+2= what ever the governments plesure be.”
Full agreement on that.
“The Federal Government just informed me they have discontinued the practice of providing grave-markers for vets (unless they fall in active duty) As the Beatles said in TAXMAN beware the pennies on your eyes.”
I’m sorry to hear that Skruff - I can imagine how that might make you feel and I share your distaste for the tax man.
Report thisBy Marshall, June 9, 2007 at 4:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: #76605 by ardee on 6/09 at 8:53 am
I’d say your article sums up Nader’s core philosophy nicely, but it’s long on opinion and short on fact. I don’t quibble with the few numbers he does provide (like CEO pay as a multiple of rank and file pay), but most of the piece is simply his opinion.
Report thisBy ardee, June 9, 2007 at 12:53 pm #
A great read:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/08/taming_corporations_gone_wild.php
Taming Corporations Gone Wild
Ralph Nader
June 08, 2007
Ralph Nader is a consumer and political activist. He is the organizer of a conference, Taming the Giant Corporation: A National Conference on Corporate Accountability, that convenes today through Sunday in Washington “to address how to subordinate raw corporate power to the will of the people.” Nader will speak at the closing session Sunday.
Back in the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt went on national radio and declared what the basic necessities were for the American peoplea wage that can support a family, decent housing, the right to health care, a good education and future economic security.
Sound familiar today? It certainly would sound familiar to a majority of the American people. The struggle for livelihood, the struggles to escape poverty, calamitous health care bills, mounting debt, gouging rents and failing, crumbling schools continues year after year.
Whats that French saying? The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Things have changed for the rich and corporate, though. The rich have gotten richer. The talk now is about the super-rich and the hyper-rich. The richest 1 percent of people in this country has financial wealth equal to the combined financial wealth of the bottom 95 percent.
The big corporations are more avaricious than ever. The past decades corporate crime wave, dutifully reported in the major business medianewspapers and magazinesdemonstrates how trillions of dollars were looted, or drained away, from tens of millions of small investors, pensioners and workers.
In FDRs time, the CEOs of the top 300 corporations paid themselves about 12 times the average wage in their company. Now the top greed registers 400 to 500 times what the average workers eke out in a full year. Wal-Mart is an example of that sheer self-serving power at the top.
All this is occurring while the big companies deliver comparatively far less to the economic well-being of the American worker. The CEOs are otherwise preoccupied with figuring out how they can outsource more American jobs to China and India, how they can hollow out more communities and ship whole industries to those and other countries, many under authoritarian rule, that promise to keep the CEOs operations at costs close to serfdom.
Interesting, isnt it, that the CEOs say it is necessary to flee our countrywhere they were nurtured to their size and profitsin order to keep up with global competition. But they never urge outsourcing their own CEO jobs to hardworking, bilingual executives in the Third World willing to work for less than one-tenth of the U.S. CEOs pay package.
Report this—-read the rest it is well worth the effort….....
By Skruff, June 9, 2007 at 8:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
76552 by Marshall on 6/09 at 3:21 am
Hummm Wonder why I havent recieved any of this largess? Never made more than 20K and have paid out taxes every year since I began working in 1963.
“You have. Youre paying less in federal taxes than you did before the tax cuts.”
No, in 1968 dollars I’m paying about twice what I was paying through the Seventies. The Standard deduction is worth 1/3 of it’s 1968 value, and because I’m single without dependents, I pay more than if I was “partnered”
The tax code is the only area where one is expected to use standard math, BUT 2+2= what ever the government’s plesure be.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind being in the highest taxed State (relitive to income) in these (semi)united states it is the lack of return I resent. I get zero return for anything I send to Washington (or Augusta where we have wall-to-wall Democrats) The Federal Government just informed me they have discontinued the practice of providing grave-markers for vets (unless they fall in active duty) As the Beatles said in TAXMAN “beware the pennies on your eyes.
Report thisBy Marshall, June 9, 2007 at 7:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
#76160 by Skruff on 6/07 at 2:43 pm
“Hummm Wonder why I havent recieved any of this largess? Never made more than 20K and have paid out taxes every year since I began working in 1963.”
You have. You’re paying less in federal taxes than you did before the tax cuts.
“Even the CBO (reported in the Washington Post) tells a more realistic story.”
The fact is cuting the marginal rate is a cut for everyone.
Report thisBy Marshall, June 8, 2007 at 9:58 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: #76335 by ardee on 6/08 at 9:39 am
The opinion piece you quoted assails the Bush tax cuts for being the wrong prescription to stimulate the economy.
But that’s a curious article to post now (four years later), given that the economy has done exactly the opposite of what the writer predicted: 8 million new jobs. And no, these are not McDonalds type jobs.
From the article: “The idea that tax revenues will increase if tax rates are decreased tends to be contrary and counter intuitive.”
Yet that’s exactly what they’ve done. Federal tax revenue has drastically increased since the tax cuts, which is why the budget deficit has significantly decreased in the last few years:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5548032
This time, there’s no Internet bubble to blame our economic improvement on. The 4.5% unemployment rate is real - as are the increases in real wages.
Finally, the national debt isn’t measured in absolute numbers - it’s measured as a percentage of GDP and is actually LOWER now than it was in most of the 1990s. Your article completely misses this, thus its discussion of the debt is meaningless. Here’s a chart to help illustrate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_debt_as_a_%_of_GDP.png
Report thisBy ardee, June 8, 2007 at 1:42 pm #
Read this in its entirety, too long to post it all in one coherent comment:
http://www.proaxis.com/~randau2/singles/taxcuts.htm
Report this** Our national debt, of under 1 trillion dollars, soared past 4 trillion dollars after the great “Reganomics” tax reduction experiment in the 1980’s and we’ve yet to recover from that added debt load. In a 10 year period from 1982, during the early years of the first Regan-Bush administration, to 1992, the end of the follow-on Bush administration, the national debt quadrupled. For 35 years before that, after economic recovery from World War II (1947 to 1982), the national debt remained virtually the same in inflation adjusted dollars. From that point on it has skyrocketed. (Ref: U.S.National Debt Clock)
By ardee, June 8, 2007 at 1:39 pm #
ABUSING TAX CUTS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
Report thisby randau, Feb.2003
** (Rev: 5/18/03)
It appears that the only way the G.W.Bush administration wants to stimulate the economy is to give more and more money to the wealthy and big business with massive tax cuts. Their prior “across the board” tax cuts did, as they claimed, put money into every tax payer’s pocket. That is, it put massive amounts of money into wealthy and big business tax payer’s pockets and more modest (trivial) amounts into the vast majority of tax payer’s pockets. However, they say, the wealthy are the big investors and big businesses are the big employers, so they will be the most effective ones to stimulate more investment and employment. In other words, “Supply Side, Trickle Down Economics”. Personally, I think they’re just using our economic crisis and/or the war on terrorism as an excuse to raid the treasury for payback to their prior campaign finance supporters or as a down payment for the next campaign. Oh, how desperately we need campaign finance reform. Where the heck is it?
Looting the National Treasury:
The 216 to 214 passage of the economic stimulus package (H.R.3090 - Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001) on 10/24/2001 by the slight Republican majority in the House of Representatives amounted to little more than using the faltering economy as an excuse to loot the National Treasury. Here is a link to an excellent article which summarizes the blatant federal giveaways to big business contained in that economic stimulus package. How can giving lots of money to big businesses possibly stimulate the economy when there’s an inadequate consumer market to buy their products or services? Why would any business increase its investment to create more jobs if their consumer market is depressed and they’ve laid-off employees because they can’t even market the products they’re currently producing? It doesn’t make any sense.
http://www.proaxis.com/~randau2/singles/taxcuts.htm
By ardee, June 8, 2007 at 1:31 pm #
Third and last…..
Double Taxation of Dividends:
Report thisAnother thing that draws the accusation of class warfare is any opposition to eliminating taxation of dividends paid to stock holders. The claim being that taxation of dividends is double taxation. Because, dividends are paid out of after-tax corporate profits which shouldn’t be taxed again as income to the shareholders. Because, the shareholders are the owners of the corporation and in a sense are the corporation. Well, why not just exempt from taxation corporate profits that are distributed as dividends in the first place, which would also add an incentive for more corporations to distribute even more dividends. This would remove the basis for accusations of class warfare, because there’d no longer be a double taxation argument for eliminating the tax on dividends as personal income to wealthy shareholders.
By Skruff, June 7, 2007 at 6:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
76066 by Marshall on 6/07 at 10:30 am
#75559 by Skruff on 6/05 at 1:32 pm
With all due respect, the richest 10% of society pay 40% of all taxes while controling 90% of the wealth.
“Not true Skruff. As of 2003, the wealthiest 10% paid 66% of all taxes, and the top 50% paid virtually ALL income tax (97%). The poor in the US pay virtually NO income tax, many receiving money back from the government (which is why tax cuts didnt affect them much). This trend toward a higher tax burden on the wealthy has only increased since then.”
Hummm Wonder why I haven’t recieved any of this largess? Never made more than 20K and have paid out taxes every year since I began working in 1963.
Even the CBO (reported in the Washington Post) tells a more realistic story.
see the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html
Report thisBy Marshall, June 7, 2007 at 2:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
#75559 by Skruff on 6/05 at 1:32 pm
“With all due respect, the richest 10% of society pay 40% of all taxes while controling 90% of the wealth.”
Not true Skruff. As of 2003, the wealthiest 10% paid 66% of all taxes, and the top 50% paid virtually ALL income tax (97%). The poor in the US pay virtually NO income tax, many receiving money back from the government (which is why tax cuts didn’t affect them much). This trend toward a higher tax burden on the wealthy has only increased since then.
“The wealthy enjoy a lifestyle far superior to the lifestyles of the so-called robber barons should they not pay for this privelege?”
They already do as part of our progressive tax system. The more important guage is standard of living, of which the US enjoys arguably the highest in the world. Which is why a “poor” person in the US is far better off than the poor elsewhere.
Report thisBy Skruff, June 5, 2007 at 5:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
75512 by Marshall on 6/05 at 11:00 am
“The Bush tax cuts were across the board, proportional to taxes paid. Anything else would be income redistribution. Why the misinformation?”
With all due respect, the richest 10% of society pay 40% of all taxes while controling 90% of the wealth. although the rest of us pay 60% of the taxes, most do not realize the effects of a “tax cut” because poor folks don’t itemize.
IMHO that’s income redistributation. In a fair and just society one would pay a precentage of wealth, rather than a percapita rate. Currently, the poorest 10% in our society own 1% of US wealth, and pay 10% of US taxes.
Again, IMHO that seems to be income redistributation. The wealthy enjoy a lifestyle far superior to the lifestyles of the so-called “robber barons” should they not pay for this privelege?
Report thisBy Marshall, June 5, 2007 at 3:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
So, Skruff and Ardee, we’ve met on other topics and disagreed. Funny that you’d both share qualities often attributed to contemporary conservatives (fiscal restraint, NRA, criticism of contemporary liberal disunity).
But Ardee, being the more liberal, you did eroneously refer to “irresponsible tax cuts aimed at the richest 10% of society”. The Bush tax cuts were across the board, proportional to taxes paid. Anything else would be income redistribution. Why the misinformation?
Report thisBy Skruff, June 4, 2007 at 5:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
#75276 by ardee on 6/04 at 12:52 pm
Sorry if I offended you but this last post of yours is so much clearer than ones preceeding. I hope we can sans rancor.
In this day and age, those who would get “offended” would be so all day long. I was not offended, and we can surely dialogue. I am not much for NRA politics either, I joined for the hunter’s insurance, and the forum on guns.
My fiscal concervitive role models include, the late Norris Cotton (R New Hampshire) the Late Everett Dirksen (R. Illinois) Bill Proxmire (D. Wisconsin) and the late Governor Jim Longley (I Maine)
I do not believe you would find a vote for irresponsible tax cuts aimed at the richest 10% of society here…. In Fact, Norris Cotton once said:
“Taxes should not be on the man but on the money. If the wealthy control 80% of the nations wealth, they should pay 80% of the nations bills, and be happy to do this.”
In those days New Hampshire was a down at the heels mill state. Cotton saw the working folks as our greatest assett, and was fond of telling his wealthy contributors: hard to run that factory and make all that money without workers.
Like I said, a different time….‘cause they contributed anyway.
Report thisBy ardee, June 4, 2007 at 4:52 pm #
for Skruff
..................
OK so if I appeared to take you out of context it was certainly not intentional, with your post so available that would indeed be clumsy of me, at best…..It was actually an attempt at levity and lightening the mood, sorry it failed. I do not believe you to be against civil rights, though as a self confessed fiscal conservative I am unsure about the tax cut part….;-}
We are both against the Death Penalty, we are both NRA members( though I detest their politics for the most part, but then I detest AARP’s as well), I am certainly not against charity but detest those who pay out huge salaries and donate only a fraction of what they receive. I give chiefly to Special Olympics and Make a Wish.
I certainly see this administration as anathema to everything that makes this nation good, and promoters of all that makes this nation a scourge, both domestically and abroad. Bush lost two elections and serves still, what that says about our system of governance is still being written, by those much wiser than I.
Liberals, the entire left for that matter, are a fractious and separated lot.That we agree about Bush may be the only area of agreement among us. I respect and get along with real conservatives, those like Ron Paul are an interesting bunch though we differ in important areas.
The Neoconservatives however are a mean, selfish, greedy bunch and pompously ignorant of the rule of law and the meaning of the Constitution. The main reason I detest George Bush is the growing evidence of the numerous constitutional violations committed under his direction. I think James Madison would punch George’s lights out ,frankly.
Sorry if I offended you but this last post of yours is so much clearer than ones preceeding. I hope we can dialogue sans rancor.
Report thisBy Skruff, June 4, 2007 at 9:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
75099 by ardee on 6/03 at 4:30 pm says:
Just curious Skruff, are you implying that all of this is a bad thing?
Killed many innocents in Southeast Asia, and signed the Civil Rights Act. Lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and gave the poor a tax cut.
Snip a piece, out of context, and bash it. Although you claim a home in liberalism, your attack is reminicent of Karl Rove. The unrevised version of my comment was;
Now I see our disconnect. You feel a liberal adgenda is a good thing. I do not share that opinion. LBJ had a very liberal adgenda while escalating the war in Vietnam. Killed many innocents in Southeast Asia, and signed the Civil Rights Act. Lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and gave the poor a tax cut.
Overall, he was still a less than adaquate president.
Indication that the things he did well couldn’t compensate for the attrocities he committed.
Are you just unable to understand that life is about compromises? Are you simply refusing to consider that we must choose the best of the available choices? Do you hope to accomplish anything politically speaking?
“I love to be lectured by those who are so very sure they are right. NO, I don’t have a rock solid idology, I do have some experience, and I like to think I learn from that. My experience has been that when you get too comfortable where you are, usually that means (for me) that I haven’t been learning enough about what I do not know.
Actually when you take the personalities (Gore, Hillary, the Democratic party) out of the equasion we may be closer than you think.
Try this on:
I am anti death penalty.
I’ve worked in Juvenile corrections and believe that locking up children does no good.
I worked hard in Maine for the Children’s health care bill which now insures all children in this State.
I worked and voted for Mike Dukakis
AND
I am a member of the NRA and a gun owner,
sometimes vote Republican
dispise charity
watch NASCAR events
radically fisically conservative
“what you are is unknown to me, and the more you respond the more I suspect unknown to yourself as well…..”
What I attempt to be is a small i independent(Frugal Yankee variety), kind of an anomaly in today’s world. I attempt to look for myself, resist joining labels, and surely not participating in the food-fight over which of the two major cash-hog parties is best for “we the people”
My observation (please notice the “my”) is that;
people who identify themselves as “liberals” tend to see George Bush as the major evil in our world.
People who identify themselves as “consevatives” seem to be terrified of everything outside their church doors.
Can’t buy either of these positions myself.
Report thisBy blog dog, June 4, 2007 at 3:11 am #
What is this article about???????????????
But amid the pain is a truth that has no ideology: Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months. ...
++++++ the most philistine nation of all time
http://66.49.150.190/FWM/Philistine.Nation.Joe.Blow.m3u
Report thisBy ThatDeborahGirl, June 3, 2007 at 10:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What the hell is this article about? It just misses trashing both Sheehan and Gore and details NOTHING of them working them together now or in the future.
Between that Repudiation article and now this, truth dig feels vaguely right of center this weekend.
Frightening.
Report thisBy ardee, June 3, 2007 at 8:30 pm #
Just curious Skruff, are you implying that all of this is a bad thing?
“Killed many innocents in Southeast Asia, and signed the Civil Rights Act. Lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and gave the poor a tax cut. “
Are you just unable to understand that life is about compromises? Are you simply refusing to consider that we must choose the best of the available choices? Do you hope to accomplish anything politically speaking?
You objected to Gore’s choice of Joe Lieberman, I explained that that particuar incarnation of Joe was a very acceptable choice and that he became so reprehensible afterwards. I am a very proud liberal, what you are is unknown to me, and the more you respond the more I suspect unknown to yourself as well…..
Report thisBy Skruff, June 3, 2007 at 1:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
74998 by ardee on 6/03 at 8:54 am
“By the by, if you compare the voting records of Lieberman in the Senate with those of Cheney while serving in the House (79-89 Wyoming) it becomes very obvious that Lieberman voted a very liberal agenda his entire time in the Senate ( until rather recently in fact). The same certainly cannot be said of Dick….. “
Now I see our disconnect. You feel a “liberal adgenda” is a good thing. I do not share that opinion. LBJ had a very “liberal adgenda” while escalating the war in Vietnam. Killed many innocents in Southeast Asia, and signed the Civil Rights Act. Lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and gave the poor a tax cut.
Overall, he was still a less than adaquate president.
We do (seem to) agree on the futility of the war in Iraq.
Report thisBy ardee, June 3, 2007 at 12:54 pm #
The difference between reality and possibility makes for a fun exchange but no real conclusions can be made, as one is fact the other fiction. Cheney is probably the most powerful VP in American history, and given the rather obvious shortcomings of our Chief Executive is it any wonder? Lieberman, as VP under a rather intellectual and astute President Gore, would have had a much more limited role in the policies of our nation. Alas we will never know…...
By the by, if you compare the voting records of Lieberman in the Senate with those of Cheney while serving in the House (79-89 Wyoming) it becomes very obvious that Lieberman voted a very liberal agenda his entire time in the Senate ( until rather recently in fact). The same certainly cannot be said of Dick…..
Report thisBy Skruff, June 3, 2007 at 9:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
74656 by ardee on 6/01 at 3:57 pm says:
“....I do like to believe that, under President Gore, we would not have invaded Iraq, thus enabling our military to successfully rid Afghanistan of the islamofascists including the capture of bin Laden at Tora Bora.”
VP Cheney, and prospective VP Lieberman are almost idological twins. What makes you believe Lieberman’s council would not have placed us in the exact same position.
Report thisBy blog dog, June 2, 2007 at 11:45 pm #
#74851 by David on 6/02 at 1:08 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
Did Cindy Sheehan really endorse the controlled demolition theory?
******** she did, on Alex Jones radio broadcast this week.
As for your disappointment, forget how the buildings fell down, and forget your tin foil distractions; in Wesbster G. Tarpleys words:
Look, this is a forgotten clue of 9/11, which seems to me is the most important, because this is when the invisible government speaks. You may remember that at one point during the morning, 10:00 probably on 9/11, a death threat against Bush came into the Secret Service, saying, Angel is next. It essentially means, Air Force One will be shot down as the next step in these developments.
Angel is next. Implies the top-secret codename or codeword for the Presidential aircraft, Air Force One. I go into intelligence agency reports, now let me just make a parenthesis, (9/11 didnt occur in a vacuum, it occurs in a world in which there are others watching. Whos watching? Well, Russias watching, Israels watching very much, the French are watching, theres Germans, Japan ), what I found is 3 separate reports, one is the Réseau Voltaire which is obviously benefiting from leaks from French intelligence. The Réseau Voltaire version, which came out September 20th (or) 25th, says that the Angel is next. phone call came complete with top secret codeword, across a variety of agencies, suggesting that the people that were behind the attacks were a powerful faction inside the US intelligence community and government in general.
And that secondly, they had the nuclear launch codes in their possession. This report goes on to say that the Bush team thought during most of the day, that they were the target of a military coup. And it was only somehow later in the day that the situation was recomposed. Now what would it mean?
Essentially it means that the invisible government force behind 9/11 tells Bush that he must respond by stating that its Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Arabs, the Islamic world, and that whats gonna happen is the invasion of Afghanistan, and above all the beginning of the war of civilizations that Samuel Huntington writes about. An open-ended aggression of the United States against the Arab and Islamic world.
If not inclined to read Tarpleys 911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA, heres 5 minutes on the topic of the Shadow Government, of Iran-Contra vintage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1FFcHN6RJI&mode=related&search;=
Tarpleys lecture - long version here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2699841318334319800&hl=en
Tarpley is clearly the most incisive analyst on this issue. 911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA was at the top of the Amazon.com book sales rankings last fall. You dont see interviews with him at Truthdigg, Democracy Now or Charlie Rose simply because his thesis, that false flag terrorism is at the heart of the strangelove neocons Global War of Terror, with 911 as the lynchpin to it all, is still the media 3rd Rail. Anyone in the MSM discussing 911 seriously (i.e. beyond the coverup) is immediately fried and their funding is ended. And, in this way freedom of speech is silenced in our so-called democratic republic.
Report thisBy David, June 2, 2007 at 5:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Did Cindy Sheehan really endorse the “controlled demolition” theory? Sorry to hear that. She is a great lady, a courageous but tired and disheartened warrior fighting for an honest assessment of the Iraq War.
Airliners loaded with kerosene hit the Twin Towers and set in motion the ingredients for pancake collapse, which the two buildings did. One has to make complete hash of Occam’s razor to believe otherwise, and do it with elaborate but misguided “scientific” analysis.
I am intrigued by the possibility, given some of the proponents of this theory, that it is actually a useful narrative for those who don’t want any meaningful analysis of the attacks, the reasons for the attacks, and the like, since they can all now be brushed aside along with this tin-hat conspiracy theory. It’s not that I don’t think some of these bastards aren’t capable of some pretty heinous stuff for political reasons - they just didn’t in this case, and quite frankly probably believed (Bush and Cheney in particular) that it couldn’t happen, and so the warnings weren’t important (there was Star Wars to focus on, not ideologically driven extremist Saudis and Egyptians in commercial American airliners to worry about.
Please, people, let this red herring go.
Report thisBy Skruff, June 1, 2007 at 9:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I personally believe the folks we “elect” as president, are just windowdressing. The policy is run by jaded bureaucrats who tell the incoming president what is happening, and what will happen. It is the reason the country changes almost not at all, from a Johnson to a Nixon presidency, and also the reason inexperianced dolts like Carter & Reagan can look semi-competant in the job.
Must have been a shift change before Lil Bush.
Report thisBy ardee, June 1, 2007 at 7:57 pm #
Skruff postulates:
“There is no democracy The U.S. is a Republic. If we were a Democracy, we would be complaining about President Gore, now in his second term doing pretty much the same things Bush has done.”
I wonder if this is a jaundiced view of our system of governance or an accurate one…...I do like to believe that, under President Gore, we would not have invaded Iraq, thus enabling our military to successfully rid Afghanistan of the islamofascists including the capture of bin Laden at Tora Bora.
Under President Gore we might not have seen the suspension of Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus as well, nor the wiretapping of who knows how many folks here and abroad. Heck we might not have a Patriot Act, we might not have a shrinking Middle Class and a loss of good paying jobs either.
We would certainly not have a No Child Left Undamaged education bill, instead kids might be studying actual facts and learning how to assimilate them and decide things instead of studying a test.
We wouldnt have the horrific cast of characters on the Supreme Court we have seen under Bush as well. Therefore Roe wouldnt be endangered today. We would also not have government sponsorship of an ascendancy of the religious right seeking to impose their own unique brand of religion upon us all, nor a diminishment of secular safety nets in favor of those who make one convert before receiving assistance.
Who knows what might have been, but I do agree with Skruff on one important point, we will not soon see an end to that which imperils us all…....we get the government we deserve, after all…..
Report thisBy Skruff, June 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Betty, BA on 5/31 at 6:27 am says:
“Dr, Dr, we are citizens, not subjects, of this democracy”
There is no “democracy” The U.S. is a Republic. If we were a Democracy, we would be complaining about President Gore, now in his second term doing pretty much the same things Bush has done.
Democracy is a system where every citizen votes directly on every issue (inconvenient in a society with 300 million people). Democracies do not need representatives or electoral colleges.
One of the many problems in These semi united states is we have a psychological disorder which makes us see ourselves as something we are not. Continuing the long-running myth that we are a “democracy” is part of that personality flaw. It might also help if citizens began to realize that the problems we are facing today will not leave with Bush and Cheney, or even if we abolish the entire Republican Party.
Report thisBy Louise, June 1, 2007 at 2:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Apparently nobody has noticed my monumental Boo-boo!
#74398 by Louise on 5/31 at 7:00 pm
“A presidential candidate rarely picks his running mate. The VP is generally selected by the powers that be, for political expediency.
Ike did not pick Truman. (duh ... )
Of course he didn’t! And neither did FDR!
JFK did not pick Johnson. Nixon did not pick Ford. Reagan did not pick Bush I. Who knows, maybe Clinton did not pick Gore. So theres a good chance Gore did not hand-pick Lieberman, although he has never said. And Bush did not pick Cheney.
Cheney picked Cheney.”
“The nation has slept through most of this.”
And sleeps still!
By the way, in case you haven’t had the opportunity to read Cindy Sheehan’s entire letter, you can find it here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=878
“I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither.”
Report this- “The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think.”
- “I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it. It’s up to you now.”
- Cindy Sheehan
By ardee, June 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm #
Sheehan’s supposed retirement is, in fact and in her own words, temporary. Disgusted, and rightfully so, with the complicity, incompetence and cowardice displayed by the Democratic majority she is regrouping and shifting her focus. I for one will welcome her back to the fray.
Gore is a very intelligent, very knowledgeable guy, and able to speak to the issues with passion and eloquence. One might think that the left, desperate as it is for spokespersons with international cachet, frantic as it is for cohesion and rallying points, might forgive Albert his negatives and focus upon the many positives he brings to the table.
Report thisBy Louise, June 1, 2007 at 11:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
#74456 by blog dog
“Anti-war icon Cindy Sheehan has gone public on her support for the 9/11 truth movement after she told a radio show that the collapse of the twin towers looked like a controlled demolition and that there should be a new investigation into the terrorist attacks.”
“Qs: Where is Gore?”
“As: Just trying to keep his hand in - dont touch that 3rd rail”
#74430 by 911truthdotorg
“From a recent interview:
Gore quickly said, I think I see where you might be heading. Not wishing to even say the words nine eleven or the words false flag, he deftly trashed the ongoing 9/11 truth movement with these few words: All that other stuff is outside the range of possibility.
You are both correct of course.
Articles challenging the “official” story are never published HERE either!
Speculation requires names. There are so many names involved no one dares publish without hard proof. A new investigation, whether independent or government sponsored will never happen, because no-one has the hard proof to substantiate charges naming names.
Someday, when enough of the players have died of old age.
But not in my lifetime.
(Hope I’m wrong)
What’s the most pressing issue facing us now?
To end the war?
To end the neo-con control of our government?
To discover the truth about 9/11?
If the truth about 9/11 was widely published and believed, the rest would all be revealed.
Which would end the war and bring the neo-con control to an end.
Or would it?
Ending the war is the most pressing issue, because people are daily dieing for no good reason. Our congress could do that, but because they choose to pass meaningless legislation that will fund the war, that wont happen. Unless there is a general up-rising in the military.
So, that leaves us with ONE obvious pressing issue that is being ignored!
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/42339/
“In English: Any war crime committed by the Bush administration since 9/11 cannot be prosecuted.”
- Evan Derkacz
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article1.html
“Destroying cities and torturing prisoners are things you do when you are losing the real war, the war your enemies are fighting. They are signals of moral bankruptcy. They destroy the confidence and respect of your friends, and reinforce the credibility of the enemy.”
- William Pfaff, The American Conservative
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/terror_laws_torture_bill_bush_non_allegiance_is_terrorism.htm
“Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism”
-Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
The need to repeal the horrendous legislation that the previous repub controlled congress passed. Because it gives the administration the power to silence EVERYONE!
Failing to muster the gonads to do that, impeaching Cheney is the most pressing issue. Putting a spotlight on criminal activity on-going in the White House would force the few holdouts to re-examine the rest of it.
When it comes right down to it, perhaps the only thing left to us is to follow Scott Ritter’s advise and REPUDIATE them. Naughty congress, naughty administration.
Actually, that’s not what Repudiation means.
Perhaps we need to organize a National Conference inviting everybody to attend. Then lay our individual issues aside long enough for us all to come together with a very specific plan to end the war and end the neo-con empire.
We The People are the most powerful lobby in the United States. We need to speak with one voice and that means agreeing to agree on a specific course of action. Only when we can do that can we truly exercise our incredible power.
But we cant wait much longer!
While we are all quibbling about what needs to happen and who is or isn’t on our side, nothing is changing! Bush’s private army and political prisons are growing. Let’s hope we wont finally all come together as “Detainees” in a concentration camp!
Report thisBy nonukes, June 1, 2007 at 11:23 am #
Can someone PLEASE change this headline before more people waste their time looking for a ‘joining’ which is just a fantasy?
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, June 1, 2007 at 10:24 am #
Betty Ba #74189, I’m a subject of this administration’s “democracy,” you go ahead and be a citizen.
Report thisBy blog dog, June 1, 2007 at 3:40 am #
Anti-war icon Cindy Sheehan has gone public on her support for the 9/11 truth movement after she told a radio show that the collapse of the twin towers looked like a controlled demolition and that there should be a new investigation into the terrorist attacks.
Qs: Where is Gore? Where is Ms. Cocco? Where is Moveon.org?
As: Just trying to keep his hand in - don’t touch that 3rd rail; desperate not to lose her by lines; scared witless, like all the punters.
Report thisBy 911truthdotorg, June 1, 2007 at 12:28 am #
Al Gore is just another double talking hack.
1)Hes against impeaching the criminal-in-chief.
2)He believes the truth of 9/11 is outside the range
of possibility.
From a recent interview:
Gore quickly said, I think I see where you might be heading. Not wishing to even say the words nine eleven or the words false flag, he deftly trashed the ongoing 9/11 truth movement with these few words: All that other stuff is outside the range of possibility.
Al Gore is one of THEM and thus, part of the problem.
Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition
Report thisBy GDAEman, May 31, 2007 at 11:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Eventually these peculiar dark ages will end. We can only hope historians see them as an aberration, not an early marker of decline.
Unfortunately, the history is already being written; we’re in decline. Here’s a contemporary example with references to someone documenting this decline. Former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson is another who is documenting it.
Watch the real estate situation unravel this summer. Congress will try to save it, placing the burden on future tax-payers (so much for a “free” market in which bad business decisions are allowed to play out). We’ve seen it before in the same way the S&L double-scandal was swept under the rug. The twin debts will grow. Eventually, foreigners will diversify out of dollars, more so than they are already, and the US will decline like Spain and Britain did. The “hope” is that the US will do so with grace rather than a holocaust.
Report thisBy Marshall, May 31, 2007 at 11:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Was this article just an excuse to cover Gore and Sheean? Cause it sure ain’t about them “joining forces”, unless it’s about them both cashing in big on books about their lives and views (Cindy’s hasn’t been announced, but I’ll wager that’s why she’s “retiring”).
Report thisBy Louise, May 31, 2007 at 11:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
JNagarya (#74357)
“Youre reading in. Had you read more of Marie Cocco, perhaps over a few years, youd know she is implying no such negative.”
You could be right. I may very well be reading in. The choice of words can easily influence the eventual impact or impression.
Which is my point exactly!
As you noted, I qualified with:
“Perhaps that was not your intention, but your article demonstrates so well why the media is part of the problem.”
And further down qualified with more “Perhap(s).”
Whether or not a writer does it intentionally or as an oversight, the affect can be the same. There are those who are threatened by someone’s ability to cut through the BS and make an intelligent assessment of anything. Amazing that thinking people have chosen to attack Gore and Sheehan for that ability.
I recall a friend (Apologizing for voting for Bush in 2000) qualifying it with, “But I couldn’t vote for Gore, not after some of the things he said.”
“What things? I asked. Only to find out he couldn’t specify any “things.” It just came down to his intelligence “bothering” him. And this was from an extremely intelligent men.
Intelligence does not necessarily guarantee smarts.
Many Neo-cons are considered intelligent. But the neo-cons also engage in painting the intelligent person as not to be trusted, or believed. Elevating mediocrity to the position of that thing which we should all aspire too.
Makes people easier to control.
Has anyone kept a record of how many times the president and his vice and the repubs in congress have put down intellect with a negative attack? It has become a way of life!
Meanwhile good, intelligent people with a lot of smarts keep silent, because it is so tiresome to be put down by people who are neither.
Steve Hammons (#74358)
“It is all well and good that Mr. Gore speaks out and that he is admired.”
“However, it may be helpful to remember that he chose neocon Joe Lieberman as his vice-presidential running mate.”
“The choice of Lieberman (who many people did not care for even then), as well as Bill Clintons irresponsible sexual activities in the Oval Office contributed greatly to the election of Bush and Cheney, and the horrible results we see today.”
Clintons womanizing pales into insignificance when compared to JFK. The difference being the neo-cons, who were working hard to maintain control of the House and determined to gain control of the White House used it as another wedge to divide the nation. Along with the threat that Gore was too intelligent.
Even so, they were still unsure enough about their candidate that they felt it necessary to “fix” the election. http://www.gregpalast.com/index.php
Only the most narrow minded of nincompoops would see Gore as responsible for Clintons private life!
A presidential candidate rarely picks his running mate. The VP is generally selected by the powers that be, for political expediency. Ike did not pick Truman. JFK did not pick Johnson. Nixon did not pick Ford. Reagan did not pick Bush I. Who knows, maybe Clinton did not pick Gore. So there’s a good chance Gore did not hand-pick Lieberman, although he has never said. And Bush did not pick Cheney.
Cheney picked Cheney.
The nation has slept through most of this.
Thanks to people with the courage to give voice to their recognition of the assault on reason, the nation is waking up. People like Sheehan and Gore.
Report thisPeople like this:
http://calmbeforethesand.blogspot.com/
By Hammo, May 31, 2007 at 8:27 pm #
It is all well and good that Mr. Gore speaks out and that he is admired.
However, it may be helpful to remember that he chose neocon Joe Lieberman as his vice-presidential running mate.
The choice of Lieberman (who many people did not care for even then), as well as Bill Clintons irresponsible sexual activities in the Oval Office contributed greatly to the election of Bush and Cheney, and the horrible results we see today.
It is good that Gore is now providing us with useful information, and that Americans are open to this intelligence. We should continue to gather information and intel from valid sources, while keeping in mind all elements involved.
Related to this is:
Gathering intelligence: Grassroots intel by and for the people
PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
January 30, 2007
http://www.populistamerica.com/gathering_intelligence_grassroots_intel_by_and_for_the_people
Report thisBy JNagarya, May 31, 2007 at 8:21 pm #
“#74251 by Louise on 5/31 at 5:08 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
“Thank you Marie.
“People who like to think can easily recognize how a reporter or commentator can slant a story by their choice of words.
“Perhaps that was not your intention, but your article demonstrates so well why the media is part of the problem.
“Your use of, In it he indulges his penchant for intellectualism in describing his book The Assault on Reason, implies he may not be as smart as he likes to think he is.
“Sorry, but he is that smart.
“Intellectualism is the development of the power to think!”
Not necessarily. What is the nature of that “thinking” when it is the source of bullshit and falsehood? Is it “intellection”? Yes. Is it _ipso facto_ evidence of concern for truth? No.
Even when positive, intellectualism can be overdone.
“The way you phrase that enviable quality”—
“[E]nviable quality”? Always? See above.
“. . . implies being intellectual may not be a good thing. Which in turn plays into the hands of those who denigrate intellects as bad.”
You’re reading in. Had you read more of Marie Cocco, perhaps over a few years, you’d know she is implying no such negative.
Report thisBy JNagarya, May 31, 2007 at 8:15 pm #
“#74312 by MaryinNC on 5/31 at 1:35 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
“This journalist exemplifies what Reagan/Bush41 policies have done to MSM when they got rid of the fairness doctrince - no fair/balance, no investigative/thought provoking analysis of our world today on issues that affect us. Instead they give us trite, gossip, he said/she said, jingoistic rhetoric 24/7.”
Bullshit. Marie Cocco has been on the issues such as you claim to care about since at latest 2000. And she rarely misses.
“I am glad that we have AlGore, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore. There are more of them out there.”
But what you really want is far-left “journalists” who will indulge us with their salacious speculations, many of those got from the far-right lunatic fringe anti-gum’mint paranoids.
Report thisBy Catoutofthebag, May 31, 2007 at 7:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Whoever wrote the headline for this owes a big Mea Culpa to the Truthdig community. Nowhere in this piece is there a mention of the two actually joining forces.
I can’t even figure out Marie’s point.
Report thisBy MaryinNC, May 31, 2007 at 5:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This journalist exemplifies what Reagan/Bush41 policies have done to MSM when they got rid of the fairness doctrince - no fair/balance, no investigative/thought provoking analysis of our world today on issues that affect us. Instead they give us trite, gossip, he said/she said, jingoistic rhetoric 24/7.
Report thisI am glad that we have AlGore, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore. There are more of them out there.
By Herk, May 31, 2007 at 3:13 pm #
I missed it, too, Expat - where does it say they joined forces?
Report thisBy sheila, May 31, 2007 at 2:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Recently I asked my seventh grade daughter’s friends if they had ever heard of Richard Nixon. 4 of 4 nopes. Ronald Regan? 4 of 4 nopes.John kerry? all nopes. Social Studies in schools now consists of memorizing the maps of Africa. These kids are clueless about democracy. Why have these topics been eliminated from the curricula of our schools? Hopefully its just Alaska whereby eighty percent in ‘04 voted for Bush.
Report thisBy Louise, May 31, 2007 at 2:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you Marie.
People who like to think can easily recognize how a reporter or commentator can slant a story by their choice of words.
Perhaps that was not your intention, but your article demonstrates so well why the media is part of the problem.
Your use of, “In it he indulges his penchant for intellectualism” in describing his book The Assault on Reason, implies he may not be as smart as he likes to think he is.
Sorry, but he is that smart.
Intellectualism is the development of the power to think!
The way you phrase that enviable quality implies being intellectual may not be a good thing. Which in turn plays into the hands of those who denigrate intellects as bad.
Perhaps you do not like or respect Al Gore. Otherwise this sentence might have read, “In it he demonstrates his great capacity for intellectualism alongside his utter horror at the degradation of politics and the destructive policies he lays at the White House.”
Then you go on to insult our intelligence further by calling Bill O’Reilly extraordinaire! (Strange and wonderful?)
Bill O’Reilly could better be described as indulging his penchant for creating hatred and confusion!
Hardly Strange and wonderful!
Marie! Who’s side are you on? The side of restoring the principles of a democratic republic? Or the side of a fear and stupidity driven attack on reason?
Both Gore and Sheehan stress the value of the one over the other.
You describe Cindy Sheehan’s writing as rambling, when in fact she is very concise. Something that requires the ability to think, reason, and understand!
Perhaps you don’t like or respect her either, otherwise you might have identified her letters as expressing much in few words.
“Besides their opposition to the Iraq misadventure, the two have little in common, other than having borne the contempt of a media culture that finds them easy targets for ridicule. Now they return the sentiment.”
Sheehan and Gore have indeed received constant media contempt and scorn, reinforced by the use of words that alter meaning. One of the medias favorite tools!
Your efforts to compare the two comes across as belittling both.
Perhaps you do like Bill O’Reilly better, and perhaps you don’t like Gore and Sheehan. That’s your right. But if that is the case, seems to me out of respect for your readers you should say so.
Whether or not Sheehan and Gore will become active allies in the fight to restore sanity to our government remains to be seen, but there is no denying they both speak from the same desire.
To see action from the great silent majority.
That majority that has developed the power to think, reason, and understand, who need to be reminded being intelligent is good. Now it’s time for action!
We will fix these problems when we the people decide that nobody else is going to do it for us, but that we have to become personally involved in saving American democracy.
-Al Gore
“I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it. It’s up to you now.”
Report this-Cindy Sheehan
By David, May 31, 2007 at 1:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“I must have missed something…exactly how have Gore and Sheehan joined forces?”
I guess they both did things? Or maybe they’re both mad about things. By posting on Truthdig, Gore, Sheehan and I have joined forces, lol
Report thisBy Bill Blackolive, May 31, 2007 at 12:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Cindy, keep in touch with Hugo, who gets dishonest US press coverage. He is right, you know, the bushistas conducted 9ll. Try to get through Gore’s
Report thisskull, maybe.
By Tom Doff, May 31, 2007 at 11:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I was hoping to read that Al and Cindy had joined forces and were going to hit the campaign trail together, and to wish them well and offer support, and, instead…............nothing!?
What the hell kind of a non-story is this?
Report thisBy Matt, May 31, 2007 at 10:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nothing Gore ever said took as much courage as what Cindy Sheehan dared to say in the public letter I quote here:
“...Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel….”
Of course, the sanctimonious “supporters” of Israel who control both the GOP and the Democrats - and even much of the “antiwar” movement - could not handle this most inconvenient of all inconvenient truths. Gore certainly won’t touch it.
http://groups.google.com/group/bullyard/msg/7f523b1a73be1a36?hl=en&_done=/group/bullyard/msg/7f523b1a73be1a36?hl=en
Report thisBy Betty, BA, May 31, 2007 at 10:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Dr, Dr, we are citizens, not subjects, of this democracy.
Report thisBy Matt, May 31, 2007 at 9:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Of the two, Gore and Sheehan, Sheehan gets first prize for truth-telling, because she told the truth about one subject where truth is banned in both parties, even in the “antiwar movement”:
Israel.
Here is an example of the kind of painful, unpleasant truth - very dangerous but undeniable truth - that Cindy Sheehan spoke, and that got her so hated by so many, not only on the right but also on the left:
“[Casey] was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.”
And what did she get for her bravery and honesty? She was called an “anti-Semite”, of course:
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/08/cindy_sheehan_a.php
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, May 31, 2007 at 9:27 am #
When a government, especially a so-called democracy, continues for generations to frustrate, disregard and disillusion so large a portion of its subjects and continues to deny doing so, there’s little wonder in my mind why people behave as they do. Where the hell is the mystery?
Report thisBy Expat, May 31, 2007 at 7:16 am #
I must have missed something…exactly how have Gore and Sheehan joined forces?
Report thisBy JNagarya, May 31, 2007 at 6:00 am #
There is a great deal of trash—and intellectual dishonesty on the Internet. Those are worthy of condemnation, not defense. Read the vile attacks on Ret. Lt. Col./Boston U. Professor Bacevich, a veteran and a conservative, for his article—he has opposed the war since before it began—about the death of his son in Iraq. Gore is correct: there is an ugly, destructive malevolence in our political discourse which was introduced by Reagan and Lee Atwater. Atwater apologized on his death bed. But Rove adopted the hate-speech and lying that is its core.
That malevolence is not a symptom of “democray at its finest”; it is a manifestation of deranged irresponsibility which is only destructive.
By contrast: “Democracy is responsibility”—SC Justice Brandeis.
Report thisBy Antoinette, May 31, 2007 at 3:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
If Historians were to look at the fall of the Roman Empire,perhaps they just might, match the similarity of the Roman’s penchant for throwing the Christians to the lions, as a form of entertainment, to our trivial info -tainment of the endless airing of Anna Necoles unfortunate death, The Spector and OJ murder trials or even the photos and commentory of the Abu Ghraib torture pyramid’s?
Report thisNo aberration-
By Mrefu., May 31, 2007 at 3:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s true, we are a nation oversaturated and distracted by the shiny lights of television. Rise up! Proclaim your independence from the television! It is but the begining of a better, happier, and more fufilled life.
About the internet, yeah there are plenty of crazy things on here, but you seem to forget that there are plenty of people who believe, propogate and create these things. It’s democracy at its finest, just because it doesn’t toe the line of what you think is acceptable doesn’t mean you should be down on it.
Report this