Gag.
by Tim S. on August 30th, 2005
Not enough media?
More on Ms. Media Hog:
“When you read about the Camp Casey movement in the history books, you can say I met Casey’s mom.— Cindy Sheehan
Designed and Managed by the folks at StillThinking. 
Not enough media?
More on Ms. Media Hog:
“When you read about the Camp Casey movement in the history books, you can say I met Casey’s mom.— Cindy Sheehan
Designed and Managed by the folks at StillThinking.
12 Comments
David Ketter
August 30th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Talk about a bad case of Egomania…
Lita
August 30th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Ugh. gags And she thinks her son would really be proud of her, be glad that she’s doing this?
SecDef
August 31st, 2005 at 2:48 pm
www.stormfront.org (check it out) is joining her cause! :D :D :D
Derek W.
August 31st, 2005 at 6:20 pm
“And she thinks her son would really be proud of her, be glad that she’s doing this?”
I’m sure she knew her son better than anyone else here.
Alex K.
August 31st, 2005 at 6:38 pm
“I’m sure she knew her son better than anyone else here.”
I’m sure. However, considering we’ve got an all volunteer army, I agree with Lita. I can’t imagine that any good soldier wouldn’t be ashamed by her vicious attacks, even if they weren’t her son.
Derek
August 31st, 2005 at 8:19 pm
“However, considering we’ve got an all volunteer army, I agree with Lita. I can’t imagine that any good soldier wouldn’t be ashamed by her vicious attacks, even if they weren’t her son.”
Just because you volunteer for the army doesn’t mean you support being sent to the other side of the world on foolish missions pushed by people who are not being honest.
There have been vicious attacks from both sides.
Alex K.
August 31st, 2005 at 8:41 pm
When was Bush ever dishonest?
I’m sure there must have been some. But it’s a 1:100 ratio.
Derek W.
September 1st, 2005 at 2:21 pm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930
This is hardly the only proven example, either, Alex.
SecDef
September 1st, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Derek,
“Some have reported that there may be other information in Able Danger that could
have significant ramifications in regard to the war in Iraq. Specifically, there was speculation that Able Danger links the 9/11 hijackers and Osama bin Laden to Iraq. Reportedly, Able Danger supports information from the Czech Republic’s intelligence service that Atta met with the Iraqi ambassador at the Prague airport on April 9, 2001. Of course, the CIA of George Tenant disputes the Czech intelligence report.
Regardless, Czech intelligence informed the U.S. about this meeting shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Also, other intelligence documents indicate that two of the four terrorists that piloted the hijacked airliners were in Germany from late 2000 to early 2001. It was during that time that German authorities arrested two Iraqi agents on charges of spying against Germany. One of the hijacker pilots, Ziad Jarrah, left Germany the same week that the Germans arrested the two Iraqi agents.
At the same time, the Paris-based Islamic newspaper Al-Watan Al-Arabi linked Iraq to radical Islamic groups and Osama bin Laden. The paper reported that the Iraqi agents were part of an Iraqi operation to form a network of terrorist alliances to strike U.S. targets.”
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Hayden_082905,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Something to keep an eye on….
Sam Ashwood
September 1st, 2005 at 4:26 pm
No one is going to convince me Bush didn’t lie until somebody comes up with those horrible WMDs that he sent our soldiers into war for… without a Constitutionally required Declaration of War by Congress, I might add.
It was almost comical how Bush kept changing the reason for going to war after we were into Iraq, once the WMDs weren’t showing up. One day it’s to enforce UN disarmament decrees, next it’s to protect America, next it’s to liberate Iraq… what’s next?
Alex K.
September 1st, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Sam – did you actually expect Iraq to just leave them hanging around? They could have been trucked out of the country before we even got there. Not to mention all the chemical weapons that we did find, that he was using on his own people. If those don’t count as WMDs, I don’t know what does.
@ Bush changing the reason – can’t you do two things on one mission? If you’ve got a government that’s dangerous to the US, and is killing their own people, why not liberate them while you’re at it? Otherwise you don’t have a government – and although you might not like the one we’re setting up, it’s better then nothing.
::end of Alex’s rather overheated rant::
Sam Ashwood
September 9th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Actually, I ratehr expect if Saddam had had WMDs, he would have used them against the U.S. invading forces. What good were they going to do him out of the country? Sure, it may make Bush look bad, but what good is that doing Saddam?
Chemical weapons as WMDs? I don’t think that will stand up. Chemical weapons were used extensively during the First World War, in fact, in nearly every bombardment, but accounted for a very miniscule amount of casualties. If you think a weapon being used against a dictator’s own people is a WMD, then pistols can be too, because how many people have been shot in the back of the neck by dictatorial governments such as the Soviet Union.
Since you’re using the supposed existence of WMDs for excuse to invade Iraq, I wonder if you’ll start up a petition to invade China. Not only do they possess nuclear weapons, they have threatened to use them against the United States… something Saddam never did. Isn’t it logically inconsistent to make Iraq the big target, and act like China’s our good friend?