They Lie (surprise...)!
Bush supporters spread lies about Cindy Sheehan!...And here is the proof.
Could the Bush administration, and their supporters, even exist without lies? I think not. Since day one ("election" day 2000) their reign has been predicated on a foundation of lies. But as far as American history is concerned, the only lies that matter are the ones involving sexual activity.
The Neocons: Liars. Murderers. Thieves. Traitors. "Morally superior."
posted by SheaNC at 1:15 PM
28 Comments:
Shea,
Where is the source from the Bush Administration that is saying that Cindy said "This country is not worth dying for"?
Thanks,
-Jack
Jack you can do better than that. Have you read the full transcript? She was refering to Iraq not the US...
"I'm going all over the country telling moms: This country is not worth dying for. If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq."
It's sad you need to resort to attacking Cindy Sheehan. Face it the war is a crock of shit, we were all misled.
Mochi,
Where did I attack Cindy? I did read the full blog post also. I just wanted to ask Shea where everyone was saying that she had said that she was referring to the U.S. in her statement.
Still maintaining a neutral position on the war,
-Jack
The Fair and Balanced Republican News Channel has been running the statement out of context all week. It's really pathetic.
Jack Mercer on Cindy Sheehan, "She has lied multiple times."
Jack, this link explains how they took the quote and "spun" it out of context to smear Sheehan.
Mochi,
I'm not sure where I said that about her? I don't have Fox News Channel so I guess I wouldn't have seen it.
Also, Shea, I read the quote on Frontpage--that was unfair. Tried to find transcripts on Fox News and can't find anything on this.
But you mentioned the Bush Administration---I can't find anything about them using this out of context?
-Jack
Well, I wasn't saying that the Bush administration issued this lie this time, but it is just one more brick in the wall. I think they are aware of what is being written and they encourage it. Besides, we've already seen the payola scandals involving journalists bought and paid for by the neocon disinformation machine.
There IS a lot of disinformation (lies) out there, Shea. You're right about that.
-Jack
In the interest of full disclosure, here is the quote from Sheehan (from the source provided in this post):
"I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant."
So, the U.S. is, according to Mrs. Sheehan, nothing but a murderous pile of crap. Nice sentiment. Further, Mrs. Sheehan, believes 9/11 was staged. She thinks bin Laden "might not even have attacked" us. Despite the fact that he took credit for the attacks, noting his surprise and delight at the bonus of the twin towers actually collapsing. But hey, why let an actual admission of guilt get in the way of trashing our country?
What I really truly love is how Mrs. Sheehan says bin Laden may not have even attacked us, then calls 9/11 "our Pearl Harbor" - what could she possibly mean by that? It certainly seems clear that she thinks Pearl Harbor was somehow staged. What a sweet little lady. She's not doing anything but trying to honor the life and sacrifice of her son.
Yeah right.
She's gone off the deep end spouting these insane conspiracy theories. As a parent, I feel for the loss of her child, but if she thinks she's honoring his memory in some way by her speech, she's a complete loon. Well, she's a complete loon to believe and repeat these crazy conspiracy theories.
I think, although I guess it's debatable, that Sheenan was interrupted by applause before she finished that sentence. I believe she was trying to say that we might not have been attacked by Bin Laden if we weren't a murderous pile of crap.
Oh, that makes it better. Not. I was all for showing her the respect a grieving mother deserves, still am, as far as she is a grieving mother. But as far as she is a political activist using her son's coffin as a soapbox from which to spout downright stupid statements, all respect for her as long since left the building.
I'm not trying to offer defense or disgust, I was just clarifying the point. I used your colorful phrase "murderous pile of crap" somewhat in jest.
While the United States is certainly responsible for enough good in the world that to call our country a murderous pile of crap is unfair, the moniker is not completely off base. Again, I don't necessarily support this woman, but she's just expressing her desire for her country to become more of a benevolent world leader and less of an empire - which is a title more and more people are starting using these days.
My view on Cindy Sheehan: a. she has a right to say what she's saying, b. she's not saying it particularly well, c. the other people who apparently don't have jobs and came out to "counter protest" her also have a right to say what their saying, d. no one who is strongly for or against this war is going to have their mind changed by her, e. although people on the fence about it may have their minds changed it doesn't matter because it won't affect Bush's handling of it one iota.
I understand what you're saying Smorg, I was responding in light of Shea's uber-propaganda post.
When he gets a bit older he'll see the difference between news outlets putting a possible spin on Mrs. Sheehans words and a sitting President committing perjury. At least, I hope he will.
Hey!
Have any of you noticed NL's new hit counter. Getting major hits in just a short amount of time!
Congrats, NLs
-Jack
"When he gets a little bit older?"
You think you know it all, Sean? Well, I've got news for you: you know a lot less than you think. You make your points by writing ignorant commentary and then getting personal against me? Fine. I'll just speak your language then:
Fuck you, Sean, you ignorant, condescending asshole.
For your information, the neocons said that they wanted another pearl harbor, and 9/11 was the one they produced. That was what she was refering to. Of course, you didn't know that, did you? No, better for you to write without the burden of knowledge.
You can twist her words all you want; you can suck up all the right-wing propaganda crap you can; it quite obviously doesn't make you right. Go learn something about the history of US intervention and the bloodshed it has caused before you start trashing people who believe in the things America was supposed to stand for.
Rant much Shea?
I'd be happy to read all about how the neo-cons wanted "another Pearl Harbor", please provide a link (from an actual news outlet). Who's twisting her words? They're very clear.
I suppose I did get a little personal. But face it Shea, you're posts are nothing but vitriol aimed at those across the political aisle from you. "The Neocons: Liars. Murderers. Thieves. Traitors. "Morally superior."" That statement that is pure libelous bile, backed up by absolutely no facts.
Your "proof" of "lies" is from a blog/site entitled "Culture of Corruption"? Puh-leeze! Talk about a silly idea of intellectual superiority. Oh sure, a "right-wing" commentator is nothing but lies, but a "left-wing (aka anti-Bush)" commentator speaks only Truth. That's rich. It's also hypocritical.
You bring up the 2000 election, something only avid Lefties (in my experience) bring up anymore. You see, despite the fact (yes, a hard and fast fact) that in 3 out of 4 scenarios (including, for your information, the one being pushed by Gore) Bush won Florida, you have to bring up the same tired meme that the election was "stolen". Nobody "stole" Florida, get over it - "MoveOn".
You keep spouting off about "lies". The whole foundation of the Bush administration is "lies". Yet, I've never read a post by you that points out an actual "lie". Oh sure, you point to intelligence failures and claim statements based on that intelligence was a lie. That isn't a lie, but it's the best you've got. I can understand your frustration.
It's one thing to be passionate about a topic, it's another to be as over-the-top as you are. Your last comment shows just how much growing up you still have left. You can swear at me all you want, it doesn't change facts. I find you immature. In my opinion your posts contain little to no facts and the analysis, if you can call it that, is slanted and imbued with the most rabid anti-Bush/anti-consersative bias as to make them laughable.
But hey, opinions vary.
In regards to Cindy Sheehan and her comments, to me she is just.. there. I respect her as a grieving mother, but if you are in America, and you're going to go out there and be political, your comments and your displays are open to interpretation and criticism. And what a politically sensitive subject too! You criticize her for her statements, you will get the "you asshole, her son died!" treatment. While some comments against her do deserve that treatment, many do not. Her actions to me, beg the question, what insipred you to start your trek to Crawford? The war has been going on for two and a half years- I am just sincerely asking here.
The neocons? Well, they ARE a bunch of chickenshits, there I said it. I trust we all agree that if you are going to invade a country in the most unstable part of the world, you better have a plan. This war seems to have been under-funded and horribly mismanaged. BUT, with the people who have wanted to invade Iraq since late Clinton years- Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, Kristol, Zionists, etc. I would call them chickenhawks of the hardest hardcore, but they are not stupid. Call me George Orwell, but if we had gone in there, assassinated Saddam (which we have proven we can do almost effortlessly), arranged a coup bla bla, well, that would have been easy and useless. When I talk about this, I ask others to take a look at a map and look where Iraq is located. It borders Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran (and Bahrain, a friend of mine who was in Iraq told me that is where the region's wealthiest go and and straight live it up). The SE of Iraq is the opening to the Persian Gulf. Iraq lies in the heart of the Mid East, is the flattest land and has waterways to faciliate transportation/travel by land and sea- in other words the easiest country there to traverse. Yeah, it has oil too, and oil is the most vital resource in the world today, other than water. If we dont have water we cant live, if we dont have oil we cant function. And as much as everyone says this war is not about freedom, to the people who have wanted this the most it really is. The problem is, it is freedom as they interpret. I think people there may have different concepts of freedom, as simple as it may seem; they are ultra-conservatively religious and do not really have so much respect for our lifestyle. Bottom line is, this war is a geopolitical game of Risk- the boardgame not the noun. We are establishing position because the people running this country do believe we belong over there and have this inherent right to spread our influence. And 9/11 did somehow kick this all into motion. It has always lead me to believe that bin Laden did not attack us the way we proceeded. The taped confessions to me were bullshit. This website is always kind of fun, take a look and bash me for citing it:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
Iraq and the Middle East are so resourceful, and unstable; a perfect combination for us to justify our position in that region. And since it is so disorganized and chaotic over there, it will justify our remaining there for a long time because we will not leave behind a mess we helped create. This all was no accident or mismanagement. We have no desire to leave there- we still have locations in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Far East, and Germany! This is my interpretation of what is going on today, and from that interpretation I say that we are being horribly misled. The information is there too, take a look at the names around this website as you read different articles, etc. I really do not think George Bush is anything in all of this- he just had the outgoing personality and name to get elected, and is easily influence by all of his father's friends to be their likeable, down-to-earth messenger.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
And I hate the label neo-con. It is just a politically correct way of calling someone fascist.
Wow CH, that "what really happened" site is pretty sad. Do you think the moon landing was faked as well?
You're right about the strategic importance of Iraq in the ME. That has never been a secret. And we will almost definitely maintain a few bases in Iraq after officially withdrawing troops. Just like we did in Korea, Germany, and Japan.
We have bases all over the world. And yes, their purpose is to project U.S. power all over the world. Some people see that as a bad thing. I don't. I see the alternative as isolationism, a philosophy which many believe contributed to WWII.
Sean, let's start with their lies. There are so many, many examples that I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you about all of them. But it is arguably the most important issue, because Bush and his regime have lied and lied and lied and lied and gullible saps like you lap it up. My frustration? It's not because I don't have enough material - it's because they lie so much that I don't have time to post it all. Here is a tiny fraction of the massive amount of information available:
Liars: one, two, three
Murderers: one
Thieves: one
Traitors: one, two
And finally, the Neocon's "Pearl Harbor": at this site, go to page 51 of this report: Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
Next time you want to accuse someone of not having sources, you better find out first whether you actually know what you're talking about, or if you are just projecting your own inadequacies. Again.
Cripes, Shea. You are one gigantic conspiracy nut. If these allegations had a shred of legitimacy they'd be trumpeted from the front page of the New York Times. All you linked to were rabidly partisan website authored by other gigantic conspiracy nuts.
Talk about credibility issues.
Well Wolnosc, I'd have to say that if they had the proper training, (Where ever would they get such training?, Perhaps at a flight school?) yes, they could do just that. Do I think they could take off and land? Probably not. Do I think they could follow a compass heading and visually target three of the largest buildings in the world? Yes, I think they could. Especially since most pilots fly under what they call Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Know what that means? It means you look at the ground and fly via landmarks while using your compass.
Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Sean, how the hell is landing a plane more difficult than flying a plane into a building like that? Did you click on the tutorial section? Part 1 of the tutorial shows a picture of what a 1900' tower looks like. I will never buy that a civilian-trained pilot flew a plane like that into a small landmark with such military-like precision, I will not. My friends think its funny though. I just do not think Osama had these capabilities, all running around caves in Afghanistan and such. I do not think our government did this by any means, but thats a whole nother story.
In regards to your comment, "We have bases all over the world. And yes, their purpose is to project U.S. power all over the world. Some people see that as a bad thing. I don't. I see the alternative as isolationism, a philosophy which many believe contributed to WWII."
You can make that argument, but at the same time, might one think that projecting our power all over the world inspires attacks against us and overall animosity? I do not think our involvement before WWII would have done anything to stop Hitler's emergence or influence, it would have inspired him.
And seriously, look at the PNAC website, I would compare their political philosophy to Hitler's; but not their actions (yet). Anyway you look at it, their's is a paranoid, solipsistic, egomaniacal, and fascist philosophy.
Yeah I think the moon landing was faked too. And I love it- thats what makes us awesome.
America, fuck yeah.
Hey CH!
Been a long time. I had to chuckle at your and Sean's discussion and offer:
It must not take too much intelligence to land an aircraft--dumb 'ol President Bush landed one on an aircraft carrier.
Ok, I've had my laugh...
-Jack
Jack,
No he didn't. He was sitting in the jump seat with chute strap tied up so tight around his small balls and crack so that he wouldn't shit his pants. After all, the man has admitted to being afraid of horses. He calls himself a "pickup cowboy." Just like I call myself a pickup soccer player. Difference is I'm not afraid of the ball and can use both feet. He just pretends to walk like a cowboy. What an asshole. But then again, if you can wal the walk, and talk the talk......
Sean, you are so closed-minded that it doesn't matter what I present; you'll never be satisfied because you are convinced that anything that doesn't agree with you is not only wrong, but "partisan" and "nuts". You can't stand the truth, like the fact that Bush gave the taliban 43 million dollars shortly before the 9/11 acts. You're afraid to read the examples of Bush's lies in the "American Progress.." site, or the "bushlies.net" site, or even PNAC, the neocons' official site, because it destroys your only weapon: your unwavering denial of what they have done and what they are doing, and what they want to do. You think the photos of war victims are fake? You think anyone who talks about the violations of laws and ethics committed by Halliburton has no credibility, because Haliburton is one of the gods people like you choose to worship? I don't have a credibility problem; but you have a serious problem with the truth: you're afraid of it.
I will never buy that a civilian-trained pilot flew a plane like that into a small landmark with such military-like precision, I will not.
Talk about being afraid of the truth. The truth is, civilian trained pilots fly with this much precision every day. They were flying visually, obviously, and had lots and lots of landmarks to go by. And their targets were not exactly tiny. In fact, they were enormous. And after the first plane struck one tower, the other had a mile high smoke column to follow in. I'm not saying just anyone could have jumped in the cockpit and done this. But someone with enough training could do it. It isn't as if airliners are designed to crash, they have lots of controls but once you get them going level (which the airline pilots did) it doesn't take a ton of effort to keep the planes flying. Cripes.
You conspiracy nuts make me laugh. The government couldn't hide the fact that their political operatives broke into a hotel, but this they can cover up? Now, some of the terrorists may have had military training from Saudi Arabia or Iran, or (gasp!) Iraq. If that's what you're getting at, that much I can agree with.
No, I don't think photos or war victims are faked, and as terrible as it is that innocent people died, and continue to die, the fact of the matter is that the people of Iraq are safer, and more free, now than under Sodom. Nobody wants innocents to die in war, nobody glories in that harsh reality. That does not invalidate the reasons, or abrogate the need for, war. You "sleep soundly in your bed at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf." I think that was Churchill.
As for the sources you provided, yes, they are partisan. Their raison d'etre is to discredit Bush and the Iraq War, so I don't expect anything close to objectivity from them.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
Sounds real sinister. A group that feels it is in the U.S.A.'s interests to stay involved in world events that, in a world getting ever-smaller, will impact us at home. Gives me the shivers.
I didn't know there was an "official" neo-con site, either. See? Learn something new every day.
So Sean is now an expert on flying planes! You go Christian crusader!!!! And I have read numerous accounts about all this crap. I realized, though, that I have never searched for anything that refutes these theories. So I did yesterday and read an article in popular mechanics. But nothing I have come across so far confirms that a civilian trained pilot can fly a plane like that- Ive read more accounts and have heard more about that- from people who have flown planes- that this was something that can be done with such precision- 3 times in 90 mins or whatever the timeline was. Again I sincerely do not think our own did this, but somewhere there is an answer as to who did. The first thing I always admit to myself is there is always something more going on then we the people know.
And Sean, dont pick and choose what you read on that neo-con website. Fascism and world domination are what is on the group's mind and nothing else. "issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails."
So when is that going to actually start then? Do you at all comprehend the dangerous precedent that fascism sets? For this country especially?
You "sleep soundly in your bed at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf." I think that was Churchill.
And boy, dont Cheney, Rumsfeld and little Israel (wolfie, feith and perle) know it!
Post a Comment
<< Home