Update on Camp Casey in Crawford Texas

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Why lie?

Postby proldic » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:33 pm

Cindy Sheehan Speech at Veterans For Peace Convention, August 5, 2005<br><br>"You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine <br><br>(massive round of applause) <br><br>And if you think I won't say bullshit to the President, I say move on, cuz I'll say what's on my mind..." <br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.veteransforpeace.org/convention05/sheehan_transcript.htm">www.veteransforpeace.org/...script.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

yardsticks

Postby manxkat » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:34 pm

Here's the deal. Cindy may have shown some indiscretion in that letter (or not, depending on who you want to believe), but the Slate article seems to be going out of its way to discredit her by just being such good journalists and bringing forth this information. The problem isn't that Slate brought forth the information about the possibility that Cindy Sheehan may have lied or misremembered things. The problem is that this kind of reporting tends to imply there's a level playing field of truth-telling and investigative reporting by the media. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even IF her statement was an out and out LIE, the consequences of that slip of the pen haven't hurt anyone, have they?<br><br>Now let's get back to reality, and hold those who are truly accountable for what's happening in this country (and in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the next invaded countries) to a MUCH HIGHER YARDSTICK. I want to see some EQUITY -- some truthtelling and investigative reporting on the scores of lies and consequences of those lies by Bush and the neocons. <p></p><i></i>
manxkat
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Slate: Cindy Lied

Postby Sweejak » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:36 pm

Yeah I have been following that a bit, mostly thru Raimondo.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6975">antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6975</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>She supposedly said "Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel." Does PNAC have a pro Israel stance? LOL! I think so, at least in the short term. Is it possible she does not remember? After all she apparently has the date of the CC wrong. I don't think she is lying although it's possible, for instance, out of fear for being called an anti-semite, not a unreasonable motive. My take on Cindy is that she is too savvy to do this, after all she would only have to issue a clarification. How hard is that? Also, possible she does not remember. How I wish I had asked her the follow up questions but I'm sure someone sometime will and that follow up would have been " Cindy, do you think the war was fought solely to benefit Israel or do you think it goes deeper? In either case she is entitled to her opinion and has one's that for me are way more important. Who else has taken so publicly accused W of premeditated murder?<br><br>In short, if she lied I forgive her, and I approve of her other statements about Palestine. I would, and will expect a follow up on the Slate story from her.<br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

you said it better

Postby manxkat » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:40 pm

Thanks GDN01, for essentially saying what I was trying to, but even more compellingly in your last paragraph.<br> <p></p><i></i>
manxkat
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Cindy Praised Szymanski?

Postby proldic » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:00 pm

Read between the lines...<br><br>American Nazi Idol By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | August 18, 2005 <br><br>...Sheehan has become the poster girl for the antiwar Left, because her status as a grieving mother renders the 48-year-old Vacaville, California, native more sympathetic than Medea Benjamin, Ramsey Clark, or Michael Moore (whose website hosts Sheehan’s blog). However, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and racist extremists have also begun gathering around the Gold Star Families for Peace founder. <br><br>Leading the parade is none other than "former" Klansman David Duke. Duke recently authored the article, "Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!"... <br><br>my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC [Project for a New American Century] Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. <br><br>After reading these words, Duke exclaimed, "Boy, it sounds exactly like the things I’ve been writing, doesn’t it?" Other commentators agreed. <br><br>Cindy Sheehan now dismisses the e-mail in question, although she does not renounce its contents. In Tuesday’s blog, she wrote, "Another ‘big deal’ today was the lie that I had said that Casey died for Israel. I never said that, I never wrote that."... Blowing the lid off this cover-up, she writes: <br><br>I wrote the letter because I was upset at the way Ted treated me when I appeared at a "Nightline" Town Hall meeting in January right after the inauguration. I felt that Ted had totally disrespected me. I wrote the letter to Ted [sic.; his name is Tom] Bettag and cc’d a copy to the person who gave me Ted’s address. I believe he changed the e-mail and sent it out to capitalize on my new found [sic.] notoriety by promoting his own agenda. <br><br>...Don’t hold your breath waiting for Cindy Sheehan to come forward with an exculpatory "original" e-mail, though. As the blog Sweetness and Light pointed out, Sheehan’s e-mail to "Nightline" was posted online by a man named Tony Tesh in mid-March, months before anyone had ever heard of her. This was months before she developed her "new found notoriety" among such as Duke <br><br>This would also be in keeping with a long history of her past statements. One person has reported Sheehan thundered during one of her speeches: <br><br>Iraq wasn't going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat – to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for 15 years. But for the U.S. government, this was the threat that couldn't speak its name. Europe doesn't care much about that threat. And the U.S. government didn't think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn't be popular. <br><br>If accurate, this would be as damning as the "lie" Ted Koppel’s producer allegedly interpolated into her e-mail…and it would win her more friends among the racist fringe. <br><br>Thanks to the internet, Sheehan’s popularity among the armband brigades is spreading like fire creeping up a moonlit cross. On the web’s premier hate website, Stormfront.org, Duke supporter James Kelso (whose screen name is "Charles A. Lindbergh") posted a link to a video message from Cindy Sheehan entitled, "Mr. President, you lied to us." <br><br>Cindy is also popular at the American Nationalist Union. ANU is run by Don Wassall, former national chairman of the Populist Party, a racist third party organized in 1984 by Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby; in 1988, the party nominated David Duke for president. ANU’s Nationalist News section links to four articles supporting Cindy Sheehan, including a delightful link to an article on Justin Raimondo’s Hate America Right website Antiwar.com about Christopher Hitchens: "Drink-Soaked Trotskyite Popinjay Slimes Antiwar Mom " <br><br>Duke is not the only figure on the White Wing to embrace Sheehan. The explicitly Nazi National Socialist Movement backs her, as well. NSM "Commander" Jeff Schoep entitled one recent radio broadcast "NSM SUPPORTS CINDY SHEEHAN," then devoted a second broadcast to Sheehan the next day. <br><br>The racist website Altermedia.info jumped on the bandwagon early, posting multiple articles hailing Cindy Sheehan. One article, written under the pen name "Charles Coughlin," dubbed [Sheehan] "The Rosa Parks of the Peace Movement," ...Another article, authored...hinted the "Neo-Cons" had solicited the services of the redneck... <br><br>Another article written by the late Fr. Coughlin’s acolyte, "Woman Loses Son in Iraq; Neocons Treat her Like Dirt," also made its way on Stormfront.org’s discussion forum, inspiring 14 pages of commentary. The very first respondent, neo-Nazi "Reichmann88," [1] wrote: <br><br>This lady sounds like a potential WN ["WN" is short for "White Nationalist" – BJ]. I'll bet she has no clue about Israel's involvement in her sons death. Sad indeed!! May God Bless Her! <br><br>Reichmann need not worry; it appears Sheehan "knew." <br><br>Another Stormfront contributor commented, "If there are any Texas WN units nearby Mrs. Cindy Sheehan they should reach out to hear [sic.]." When another message claimed Sheehan "probably would spit in your face if you approached her with WN," forum member "Messiah" assured: <br><br>I've known Cindy for over a year now, and no, she wouldn't spit in anyone's face for what they said....while she's not a WN, she’s a decent person who resents deeply what Bush has done with his lies in creating this war, and using the US for Israel's interests. I feel like she does about these Neo Con/Israel created wars... <br><br>The racist adulation continues. As of this morning, the Vanguard News Network linked to Sheehan’s "Nightline" e-mail and classified her as someone "putting America before Israel." (This is located above a link to Antiwar.com.) The racist news site Whitewire.com also comments favorably on Sheehan. (The only link on Whitewire.com that is not to a white supremacist website goes to Al-Jazeera.) <br><br>National Vanguard, an off-shoot of the recently splintered neo-Nazi organization National Alliance, posted some of Cindy Sheehan’s writings on its website, a reality anticipated by a reader of our blog, Moonbat Central. Also noted approvingly the Republican Jewish Coalition opposes Sheehan (which proves she’s OK). When one NV reader objected to his fellow white supremacists, the editors wrote: <br><br>All of us understand Mrs. Sheehan's limitations. We hope she overcomes them. Whatever mistakes she has made or will make, and whatever defects in her understanding, however, her story is a moving testament to the horrible injustice and irreparable harm done to our people by the Jewish supremacists. And it is also a story of pluck and courage and the great good that one person can do. <br><br>Far from distancing herself from these hatemongers, she has praised some of their work. In a podcast held live from Camp Crawford hosted by Howard Dean’s former campaign Joe Trippi, <br><br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br><br>Sheehan praised the work of "journalist" Greg Szymanski, who has covered Sheehan for the UFO website ArcticBeacon.com and the American Free Press. <br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br><br><br>At the time of the call, the Drudge Report had uncovered Sheehan’s conflicting statements about her first meeting with President Bush. In the call, Sheehan lauded Szymanski’s journalistic integrity, stating, "Your account, that you wrote, is a true one." Szymanski wrote two accounts of her meeting with the president, as well as numerous articles for the American Free Press... AFP is the newest incarnation of THE SPOTLIGHT newspaper...Both were published by Liberty Lobby, an organization with ties to neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism that is "presently the most influential right-wing extremist propaganda organization in the United States."...<br> <br>Racists and the Left: The Other Unholy Alliance <br><br>Cindy Sheehan’s newfound, seemingly mutual love for anti-Semitic, racist, and neo-Nazi extremists draws attention to one overlooked fact: the racial extremist movement has been moving steadily Left in recent years. The rhetoric on many of these websites is indistinguishable from that prevalent on leftist anti-Bush websites. For instance, David Duke writes of Cindy Sheehan: <br><br>It was criminal to send her son to die for a lie. <br><br>There were no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, no uranium from Niger, no links with Al Qaeda, no imminent threat to the American people. Every reason the American people were given for going to war has turned out to be a lie... <br><br>Duke goes further, quoting leftist hero, former Ambassdor Joseph C. Wilson III: <br><br>A more cynical reading of the agenda of certain Bush advisers could conclude that the Balkanization of Iraq was always an acceptable outcome, because Israel would then find itself surrounded by small Arab countries worried about each other instead of forming a solid block against Israel. <br><br>Thus, it should have surprised no one when Duke endorsed John Kerry for President last fall, yet somehow it did not make national headlines. <br><br>Again, the move to the Left is not confined to David Duke. White Aryan Resistance nutcase Tom Metzger portrayed himself as a tendy, California environmentalist, liberal, and atheist years ago. <br><br>The slick tactics are now trickling down through the racist movement. In one of the laudatory pro-Sheehan pieces on Altermedia, "Charles Coughlin" writes, "It is the job of all patriotic Americans to attack politicians who abuse the military sending soldiers off to fight wars for Israel and Halliburton." (Emphasis added.)<br><br>...National Alliance has suggested soldiers pass out white supremacist literature, an infraction of military rules, in order to get sent home...<br><br>National Alliance has been the source of similar-sounding rhetoric. NA declared, "That term ‘vital U.S. interests’ must kill thousands of people every year…our government has such an enormous infection of Jewish influence, that there is virtually no place on the planet safe from ‘vital U.S. interests.’"...<br><br>Why have the Nazis adored and adopted Cindy Sheehan? Ultimately, Cindy Sheehan reminds on, appropriately enough, of a character from "The Twilight Zone." In the memorable episode "He's Alive," Dennis Hopper portrays a young neo-Nazi leader who gets deadly advice from an ominous adviser. When it becomes clear the shadowy figure who has been guiding and supporting his work is the ghost of Adolf Hitler, Hopper asks, "Why me?" Hitler responds that it was Hopper who had chosen him, repeating his rhetoric and slogans. Today, it is Cindy Sheehan and the whole of the Left repeating the Nazis’ conspiratorial ravings, as the Democratic Party draws her person and her poisonous rhetoric into an ever-closer embrace.<br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cindy Praised Szymanski?

Postby Sweejak » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:11 pm

Frontpage? What next Powerline or PNAC?<br><br>What he said:<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br> In Defense of Cindy Sheehan<br>Drink-soaked Trotskyite popinjay slimes antiwar Mom<br>by Justin Raimondo<br><br>All the usual suspects are lining up to slime Cindy Sheehan: Mr. Smarm, AKA James Taranto; the pretentious twits over at Powerline blog; and of course Matt Drudge, who ought to make his role as a sounding board for the Republican National Committee official. Yet none of these worthies were really up to the task. Drudge took Sheehan's statement after her first meeting with Bush out of context and was contradicted by his own source. Taranto mocks Sheehan's grief at the combat death of her son, Casey Sheehan, by titling a link to her account of her job loss over repeated absences "the sorrow and the pity." Taranto feel pity for anybody except, perhaps, a "settler" in Gaza, or maybe Ahmed Chalabi? Forget about it!<br><br>Sheehan, according to Taranto-la, is the adherent of "a grotesque ideology" because she believes "the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government." You know, the same MSM that printed Judy Miller's fantasies of WMD on the front page of "the newspaper of record" – the same folks who never challenged the fusillade of lies being fired at the American public by the Pentagon. How could anybody believe that this very same "mainstream media" could possibly be a tool of the government – why, it's "grotesque," doncha think? John Bolton is visiting Judy Miller in prison not because they're playing on the same team, you understand, but because Bolton wants to make international prison reform the centerpiece of his tenure as UN ambassador.<br><br>Taranto is a nasty piece of work whose scribblings are of little consequence, but the truly vile stuff – the heavy lifting – is done by his counterparts in the "blogosphere," the self-important little "warbloggers" whose natterings are dutifully recorded by Slate interns and the right-wing radio screamers: Powerline takes up the theme that maybe, just maybe Sheehan's crusade against this war constitutes a "hate crime":<br><br>"Cindy Sheehan: is she a poor, benighted woman unhinged and rendered irrational by grief, or is she a calculating, vicious anti-Semite and anti-American like the extremists with whom she associates? I don't know, and I'm not sure there is any way to know. But either way, is there any reason why she should be glorified by virtually every American media outlet?"<br><br>The Powerline cowards don't want to take a definite stand one way or the other, you see, but it's clear what they would like you to believe.<br><br>It's amazing that a blogger who cites David Horowitz's "FrontPage" dares breathe a single word about "extremism." Horowitz, for his part, gets the Over the Top Award for this headline:<br><br>"COINCIDENCE OR PLANNING? Cindy Sheehan's Planned Protest Will Coincide with Expected Terror Attacks in Iraq"<br><br>Is there anyone on the Right loonier than Horowitz? If so, I'd sure like to know who it is. At least Ann Coulter has a sense of humor, and some sense of irony. Horowitz, who likes to imagine that the antiwar movement is being personally directed by Osama bin Laden, is just plain bonkers in the dourest, dreariest way imaginable.<br><br>Leave it to Horowitz's buddy Christopher Hitchens, however, to synthesize all these varieties of the same poison, while adding his own distinctively astringent (some would say bitter) flavor to the brew. Hitchens is furious over this statement by Sheehan:<br><br>"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. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy."<br><br>He leaves off the final sentence of that paragraph, however:<br><br>"That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq … in fact it has gotten worse."<br><br>I don't wonder about that omission, since it explains the enormous appeal of Sheehan and her lone crusade against the Powers That Be: Americans are thoroughly sick of this filthy war, and are likewise riled up at those who lied and hectored us into it. What Hitchens and his fellow neocons hate is that Sheehan, no intellectual but an ordinary housewife and mother, names them for the evil swine they are: her accusing finger pointed in their direction rightly terrifies them. After so many years of operating in the dark, it is shocking to be pulled, suddenly, into the spotlight – and there are at least two prosecutors looking to shine yet more light on their subterranean activities. Until now, this has all been inside baseball for the delectation of the Beltway pundits, but these days ordinary Americans are beginning to realize who and what the "neocons" represent – and that can't be good for the War Party. No sirree!<br><br>Hitchens is livid:<br><br>"I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring 'a knack for P.R.' and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? (a claim that has brought David Duke flying to Ms. Sheehan's side.) This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead 'must not have died in vain.' I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them."<br><br>David Duke defends Cindy Sheehan. What more does anyone need to know? If Duke were to point out the rather bluish color of the sky, anyone who followed suit, in Hitchens' book, ought to be charged with a "hate crime." Yet, it is fair to ask, just who is flying to the defense of the war Hitchens tirelessly agitated for? None other than Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the millions of Bible-thumping, snake-handling, trailer-trash fundamentalists whom "The Hitch" purports to despise. Well, what of it? No doubt some prominent Satanists support the war – not that there's anything wrong with that – such as Peter H. Gilmore, high priest of the Church of Satan. Asked "which side is the Church [sic!] rooting for?", His Evilness answers:<br><br>"Most Church of Satan members would support victory for the United States, since its secular form of government, as well as its culture, promotes individualism and freedom. This secularism is seen as 'Satanic' by fanatical Muslims and rightly so – from their perspective. The architects of the U.S. Government were Freemasons and they held many Satanic values, so we feel that Americans should embrace the role they give to us as 'The Great Satan.'"<br><br>The "Great Satan" – oh, that's too funny. Top that, Hitchens, you moron!<br><br>The point is that Hitchens' invocation of Duke tells us nothing about Sheehan – and speaks volumes about Hitchens, whose viciousness is surpassed only by his intellectual dishonesty.<br><br>That this drink-soaked Trotskyite popinjay, as George Galloway incisively dubbed him, has the utter gall to bring up "ventriloquizing the dead" has got to be the most appalling act of hypocrisy since anti-vice crusader and noted "war on drugs" hardliner Rush Limbaugh pleaded for "understanding" (and a reduced sentence) for his drug habit. Wasn't it Hitchens and his fellow "idealists" whose rationale for war with Iraq was revenge for Saddam Hussein's many victims? The murdered Kurds, Hitchens tirelessly reminded us, cried out for "vengeance," as did the heroic Marsh Arabs.<br><br>What is particularly loathsome about Hitchens is that his "argument" consists entirely of epithets: to speak of "neocons," he avers, is to speak of a "Jewish cabal." But why is that? Most American Jews are vastly unsympathetic to George W. Bush, his party, and his war. Aside from that, however, is neoconservatism suddenly and inexplicably disappeared, even as one of its leading exponents triumphantly brays that the "neoconservative movement" has succeeded? Sheehan never once used the word "Jew" to describe anyone or anything for the simple reason that "neocon" is not a synonym for a person of the Jewish faith. Hitchens himself is a living example of why this is true. There are others: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Michael Novak, Victor Davis Hanson, and Bill Bennett, not to mention former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, indicted spy for Israel and devout Catholic.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>You don't have to be Jewish to put Israel first</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, even over and above your own country, as the Christian fundamentalists of the Darbyite persuasion have made all too painfully plain. Franklin spied for Israel and handed over [.pdf] top-secret information to his Israeli handlers, trying to push American foreign policy in an even more Israel-centric direction and avidly enlisting AIPAC to manipulate the U.S. into a confrontation with Iran.<br><br>AIPAC's machinations replicated the methods utilized by the War Party in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Sheehan is on target in naming Israel – not "the Jews" – as a major reason why the U.S. went to war against a country that represented no threat to us. In saying this, she is simply echoing the opinion of a great many Americans, including Michael Kinsley, General Anthony Zinni, intelligence expert James Bamford, former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, and a host of others who plainly see the geopolitical implications of an American war to "democratize" the Middle East while leaving much of the region in ruins.<br><br>The ugliness of the War Party's rhetoric is often its own undoing, and this is surely the case when Hitchens tries to prove that Sheehan has no particular moral authority on the subject of the Iraq war. Fresh from his polemics against Mother Teresa, Hitchens cruelly disdains a mother's tears:<br><br>"What dreary sentimental nonsense this all is, and how much space has been wasted on it."<br><br>Those poor sentimental Americans, always going on about their emotions! Why don't they just stiffen and button their upper lips, and forget all this tripe about the sacredness of human life and the love of a mother for her son? Don't they know there's a war on?<br><br>Hitchens just wants us to get on with it. How dare a mother protest the death of her son – unless, of course, it's an Iraqi whose son was killed by Saddam's thugs. Then it's okay, the more sentimental nonsense the better. We are supposed to be all bent out of shape about the fate of the Marsh Arabs, but God help us if we mourn the death of our own children – and try to stop their slaughter in the name of a perverted "idealism." It is an "internationalism" of the heartless, the leftist origins of which are not hard to discern. Hitchens could care less how many Casey Sheehans have to die, as long as his cruel war against religion – and against anything else that conflicts with his arid, militaristic neo-Trotskyite ideology – is carried through to the end.<br><br>The War Party hates Cindy Sheehan for the simple reason that she speaks the truth – a truth that the overwhelming majority of Americans are now waking up to.<br><br>The neocons did bring us this war: they manufactured the lies, they promoted the phony "intelligence," they went on television predicting that the Iraqis would shower us with flowers and hosannas. They aren't scapegoats: they're the culprits, and they deserve what's coming to them – although not nearly enough are going to be called upon to account for their actions.<br><br>These neocons are, all of them, militant advocates for Israel, and that, as the Marxists used to say, is no accident. The blueprint for targeting Iraq – and "democratizing" the Middle East – as a strategy to take the pressure off Israel was originally laid out in "A Clean Break," a policy paper prepared for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1997 by several neoconservative policymakers – including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle – who have held high positions in the Bush administration and are now implicated in the trail of ersatz "intelligence" that lured us into the Iraq trap. This policy paper targeted Syria as the main danger to Israel, and averred that the road to Damascus had to run through Baghdad. Before a single American soldier had set foot on Iraqi soil, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was already issuing his postwar marching orders. Speaking of Syria, Iran, and other recalcitrant Muslim nations, he brayed to a visiting delegation of U.S. congressmen:<br><br>"These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons [of] mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve."<br><br>John Bolton, then undersecretary of state, agreed. In a February 2003 meeting with Israeli officials, he declared "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterward."<br><br>As I pointed out in USA Today on the eve of war:<br><br>"Our troops will be fighting a proxy war in Iraq, and beyond, not to protect U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks, but to make the world safe for Israel. When the dead are buried, let the following be inscribed on their tombstones: They died for Ariel Sharon."<br><br>Harsh – yes. But also true. The full extent of Israel's influence on the U.S. government is only now coming to light. With the indictment of the AIPAC Three – longtime AIPAC top official Steve Rosen, AIPAC policy analyst Keith Weissman, and Pentagon Iran specialist Larry Franklin – the real origins and ideological motivations of the War Party are about to be aired in open court. I couldn't help but guffaw as I read the news that the three of them have pleaded innocent to the charges, and news accounts gave us a preview of their defense:<br><br>"Rosen's attorney Abbe Lowell called the charges unjustified: 'We expect that the trial will show that this prosecution represents a misguided attempt to criminalize the public's right to participate in the political process.'"<br><br>Yeah, how can we possibly "criminalize" Rosen's innocent act of routinely passing super-secret U.S. government documents to Israeli embassy employees in at least five instances – when he was really just exercising his "right to participate in the political process"?! Those dastardly anti-Semities in the FBI have been keeping tabs on Rosen and his Israeli handlers – er, I mean, friends – since 1999. And David Duke approves! Oh, the outrage! The injustice!<br><br>Contra Hitchens and Israel's amen corner in the U.S., I think the FBI – and Sheehan – are on to something, and it has nothing to do with the dreary canards of classic anti-Semitic lore. The Israeli government made a conscious decision to influence U.S. foreign policy and drag us into war with Iraq – and much of the Arab-Muslim world – in order to pursue their own national self-interest. It wouldn't be the first time foreign agents did their level best to drag us into an overseas conflict, and it won't be the last. Mrs. Sheehan isn't telling us anything new or particularly shocking, yet she is doing it in a way that has done much to open the national conversation and focus it on the crucially important subject of just who lied us into war, and why.<br><br>That's why they hate her and are trying their best to slime her. The American people, however, are by now pretty much inured to the methods of the war propagandists – the slimey tactics of Hitchens, Rove, and the Horowitzian howlers baying for the blood of patriots – and they don't believe a word of it. Especially if it comes from the mouths of government spokesmen or apologists for government policy.<br><br>My message to Hitchens & Co. is simple: It won't work, guys! Not this time. You're cornered. Now stand and fight fair, or go slinking back to your holes – and stop smearing patriotic Americans.<br><br>NOTES IN THE MARGIN<br><br>I see here (and here) that Sheehan is denying writing "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." That phrase, she says, was inserted into the text of a letter sent to ABC News on her behalf. Not that the War Party is going to let her off the hook so easily. They are obsessed with Israel: if you don’t kowtow to the Israelis, like Commies used to hail the Soviet Union, you’re an "anti-Semite" in their book, and they will latch on to something else she said, or reportedly said, to smear her in any way they can. There is, in short, no way to appease these people, and once Sheehan starts down that road, she is doomed, I don’t care how many media handlers Ben and Jerry buy her. What’s encouraging, however, is that Sheehan is apparently not letting anyone run her – not Fenton Communications, not MoveOn.org, not the liberal advocacy groups – and is getting back to her simple protest of "A Grieving Mom Waits for George W." She is also taking a principled stand on the war, as the Los Angeles Times reports:<br><br>"Though groups like MoveOn support the Jones-Abercrombie proposal for a gradual withdrawal, Sheehan told a conference call Tuesday that she considered that time frame ‘not soon enough.’ She is urging an immediate return of all U.S. troops."<br><br>The Times goes on to say that this is something "most Americans don’t support," but as usual the journalists are plumbing for the War Party. The point is that, unless we take a proactive stance, and begin to advocate this position, we cannot begin to move the debate in this country definitively toward peace instead of war. Unlike the Democratic party strategists – losers all – and the wishy-washy liberals who don’t know from one moment to the next what they believe, Sheehan clearly realizes this:<br><br>"’We're not going to stop there, either,’ she said Tuesday. ‘We are going to join forces and we are going to just transform this country from a country that always supports war and killing to a country that is at peace.’"<br><br>Go for it, Cindy!<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 8/27/05 5:44 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

-

Postby Starman » Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:15 pm

Manxcat said:<br>Now let's get back to reality, and hold those who are truly accountable for what's happening in this country (and in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the next invaded countries) to a MUCH HIGHER YARDSTICK. I want to see some EQUITY -- some truthtelling and investigative reporting on the scores of lies and consequences of those lies by Bush and the neocons. <br><br>Hear-Hear!<br><br>GDN01 said:<br>I do wish the people who are putting so much energy into catching Cindy in a lie would put half that amount of energy into scrutinizing the words of our President and focus on the lies he has told which have led to the deaths of thousands of people. <br><br>VERY-well said!<br><br>Sweejak said:<br>In short, if she lied I forgive her, and I approve of her other statements about Palestine. <br><br>That's about the way I feel about it too -- this is SUCH a non-issue for me -- the energy and attention some folks are putting into sliming Sheehan while giving the MSM a free pass and ignoring the corrosive crimes of the Bush Cartel and the cowardice and/or complicity of the Capital Gang cowering behind the outright frauds and schemes and betrayals and corruption of neocon/corporate/Pentagon swindlers clearly shows how pervasive rot will spread when it isn't stood-up to and eliminated. The 'power' of Sheehan's message is to a great extent it's simplicity -- but it isn't fair or accurate to focus on her as an icon or a spokesperson. Whatever Sheehan did or didn't say, whether she forgot or was confused or simply wrong or lied, the thing is -- her 'fault' didn't end up getting anyway killed, let alone hurt. The obsession some people have about expunging any reference to an Israel First agenda influencing America's Foreign Policy is VERY troubling, as it's evidently meant to intimidate criticism.<br><br>I couldn't even force myself to thoroughly read Ben Johnson's hateful article -- it set my teeth on edge.<br><br>At least I READ the Slate article -- even tho it set my teeth on edge. Talk about distraction and obsessive-fixation missing the point!<br><br>Raimondo's article on the other hand was quite excellant, a very detailed analysis with piercing criticism and sharp, insightful observations; Overall, I found it quite powerful. The very LAST things the War & Blood-Money Gang want is a social movement that transcends 'common' issues of class and ideology and special interest and culture and etc., which Sheehan reflects, ’We're not going to stop there, either, ... ‘We are going to join forces and we are going to just transform this country from a country that always supports war and killing to a country that is at peace.’<br><br>You GO, Grrrrl!<br>Starman<br> <p></p><i></i>
Starman
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 3:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

David Duke and Stormfronters

Postby GDN01 » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:58 pm

I can say that even if David Duke wants to support Cindy, the people at Camp Casey have done everything they can to distance themselves from David Duke and the Stormfronters - who had planned to show up there to today and, <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2119672&posted=1">according to their website</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->:<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Our purpose in journeying to the Crawford protest against Bush's Neocon War for Israel is to:<br><br>Let The World Know That White Patriots<br>Were First & Loudest To Protest This War For Israel<br><br>We don't want leftist Johnny-come-latelys who are misleadingly protesting this war as if the war is about oil (not true), or as if it's right-wing patriots who launched this war (not true) to hijack the issue from us.<br><br>We want to challenge these leftists with the fact that their leftist leaders, like Hillary Clinton, are on the same War for Israel team as the cowardly Republicans who have been bought and paid for in the Senate, House, White House, and Media by the Jewish Neocon political machine."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Doesn't sound like they are in agreement with Camp Casey to me. When the organizers heard the Stormfronters were heading to Crawford, they met with the law enforcement agencies and made it clear that this group was not welcome in the Camp. A separate zone was arranged for them to be directed to. I haven't seen any info on what this group did today but will provide it if I do.<br><br>Just because extremists agree with some of what Cindy Sheehan has said, doesn't mean Cindy Sheehan agrees with them. <p></p><i></i>
GDN01
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 3:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Duke and Stormfronters

Postby Sweejak » Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:00 am

Stormfront is so infiltrated that I think they are a psyop. In any case they must realize that their support is not wanted by virtually anyone no matter what the legitimacy of their issues might be. <br><br>Sheehan to Visit DeLay Next? Oh you have to love it.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082705X.shtml">www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082705X.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>and Pat Boone goes after Sheehan.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://kurtnimmo.blogspot.com/2005/08/pat-boone-cindy-sheehan-is-pot-addled.html">kurtnimmo.blogspot.com/20...ddled.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Audio now.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://bradblog.com/BradShow/">bradblog.com/BradShow/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Babykillers

Postby ZeroHaven » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:38 am

Apparently "there's still some WMD's in Iraq" and Cindy Sheehan is one of the "Baby Killers".<br> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 0] --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :eek --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>what the hell is so horribly wrong with these people?<br><br> <p><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></p><i></i>
ZeroHaven
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Codepink claims infiltrators at work

Postby proldic » Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:51 pm

From very last line of article: <br><br>"...McCarron, a former Marine intelligence specialist added."<br><br>CNSNews.com Aug. 30 '05<br><br>Anti-War Group Suspects it May be Victim of 'Infiltrators'<br>By Marc Morano<br><br>...The anti-war group Code Pink...suggests that the most inflammatory signs held up at the protests might have been the work of "infiltrators whose aim [was] to disrupt the vigil."<br><br>Among the most controversial signs held up at the protests was the one reading "Maimed for a Lie." <br><br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br><br>But far from qualifying as an "infiltrator," Kevin McCarron, a spokesman for another anti-war group sponsoring the demonstrations, was photographed on June 17 holding the "Maimed for a Lie" sign himself.<br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br><br><br>Cybercast News Service obtained the photo from the D.C. chapter of the conservative blogging group Free Republic. When contacted on Monday, McCarron acknowledged that he held the "Maimed for a Lie" sign at the June 17 protest. He also expressed reservations about having the sign appear in front of the Army hospital.<br><br>[photos of McCarron holding signs]<br><br>"To some extent it might be (inappropriate,)" McCarron said. "We spoke to the (Walter Reed anti-war) organizers and they recommended it is a bit insensitive, so we are not going to show it anymore.<br><br>"Then again, the maiming itself, the wounding itself, the killing itself that's occurring, that goes on, is also offensive," McCarron said.<br><br>McCarron did defend the use of the sign during an interview with Cybercast News Service at an Aug. 19 protest, although on that evening, the "Maimed for a Lie" placard was not present. Asked whether he thought the sign was offensive, McCarron said he was "more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. <br><br>"I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," McCarron added. He also appeared on the Fox News Channel on Aug. 25 as a spokesman for the anti-war groups, defending the decision to protest in front of the medical center.<br><br>Over the weekend, Code Pink issued a statement, alleging that it was being subjected to "right wing attacks" and described the protests in question as the "Walter Reed Hospital vigil."<br><br>"In recent weeks, the [Walter Reed Army Hospital] vigil has attracted some people who have tried to change the tone and message of the vigil, including yelling and holding up inappropriate signs," the Code Pink statement read. "The organizers have asked the newcomers to be respectful and wonder if they might indeed be infiltrators whose aim is to disrupt the vigil."<br><br>There appears to have been disagreement even within the Code Pink organization over the suitability of some of the signs that were featured at the protests.<br><br>Asked by radio talk show host Sean Hannity on Aug. 25 whether she was "embarrassed" that signs reading "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist here to die for Halliburton" were being waved in front of the hospital, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin replied: "I don't think the signs you said are appropriate signs and if I were there (at Walter Reed), I would ask them (the anti-war activists) to take them down." <br><br>But Laura Costas, also a Code Pink spokeswoman, insisted just hours later that such signs as "Maimed for a Lie," were appropriate. <br><br>"If that's how somebody feels about it, they're entitled to that," Costas said during an appearance on the Fox News Channel program, "Hannity and Colmes."<br><br>McCarron, a Gulf War veteran, is no stranger to controversy. A 1999 article in the Socialist Review quoted him at an anti-war town meeting alleging that U.S. soldiers in the Gulf War had killed "innocent people, especially women and children." <br><br>"In basic training they tell you not to steal, rape, or kill innocent people, especially women and children. All that was ignored in Iraq," McCarron said, according to the Socialist Review, in reference to the first Persian Gulf War of 1991.<br><br>When reminded about this quote on Monday, McCarron conceded that he "probably" did make the statement, but said he was specifically referring to the U.S. military's decisions involving bombing.<br><br>"I questioned what kind of ethics the aerial bombardment was bound by," McCarron explained. "I don't think aerial bombardment in the first Iraq warfare was bound by the same ethics that I (as a soldier) was bound by," McCarron, a former Marine intelligence specialist added.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200508\POL20050830a.html">www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolit...0830a.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br>also, from CODEPINK press release Aug 26 '05:<br><br>Washington, DC – Since March 25, CODEPINK: Women for Peace members in Washington, DC have been holding vigils outside Walter Reed Hospital every Friday evening, to shed light on the plight of injured soldiers. <br><br>Gravely and seriously injured soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan arrive at Walter Reed for treatment late at night, under cover of darkness, so that the public does not become aware of the number of soldiers wounded and the severity of their injuries. <br> <br>These are vigils, not protests, and participants have included Washington, DC-based members of Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, and DC Labor Against the War, who all want more support for veterans....<br><br>In recent weeks, the vigil has attracted some people who have tried to change the tone and message of the vigil, including yelling and holding up inappropriate signs. The organizers have asked the newcomers to be respectful and wonder if they might indeed be infiltrators whose aim is to disrupt the vigil. <br> <br>The organizers also suspect that the sudden attention to the vigil on the part of the conservative media is part of a well-orchestrated smear campaign against the peace movement.... <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=476">www.codepink4peace.org/ar...php?id=476</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Codepink claims infiltrators at work

Postby Sweejak » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:10 pm

Gawd what a tricky issue. At least everybody is highly sensitive to the possibility of hijacking. When is advocating a viewpoint just that and when is it hijacking? When is trying to protect the movement gatekeeping?<br><br>Two points about this article.<br>-- What the guy with the sign is saying is entirely acceptable, Sheehan hereself is accusing W of premeditated murder.<br><br>-- Code Pink says these are vigils not protests hence, inappropriate. <br><br>In this case I think Code Pink trumps especially since the concept of infiltration is real. The protestor should move away from the main group and continue on his own. JMO<br><br>I know of some folks who went up to Crawford on the big weekend specifically looking for confrontations. What do they expect? That the other side will lay down their signs and repent?<br><br><br>edit: To illustrate the confusion Code Pink says they are subject to Right wing infiltration but McCarron is apparently a Socialist. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 8/30/05 12:23 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Question

Postby proldic » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:36 pm

How do you get that he's a "socialist".<br><br>Is it because he was quoted in the Socialist Review, or am I missing something? <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Question

Postby Sweejak » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:52 pm

Yeah forget that bit, I can't draw that conclusion. Upon re reading it doesn't say that, but... is he "right wing"? No time to dig I have to run, I'll stick with the confusion thing though and maybe bring up Kaminski's article on the "Radical Middle".<br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

You can't stand to read a piece off Horowitz,

Postby proldic » Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:28 pm

but it's ok for you to endorse Kaminski? <br><br>Once and for-all, good folks need to say "Fuck Kaminski!". <br><br>You cannot represent for "Cindy" or peace in any way while siting that goon's writings. If you do, you're a detriment to her cause.<br><br>If you choose to continue to site Kaminski, then don't get all self-righteously offended when someone tags you as "anti-semite", bro. Because that's how most people will (rightfully) see it. <br><br>I've been reading Kaminski from the get-go.<br>He's a bitter, viscious, mewling, cointelpro slug. <br><br>Him and Henry "a long way to go for a date" Makow should get married. Then Horowitz could be the maid-of-honor.<br><br>As far as the protest at Walter Reed, does "marine intelligence specialist" lend any weight to your analysis?<br><br>Also, Don Black of Stormfront is former army intel gulf-war, and David Duke was a lieutenant in Laos running Phoenix programs.<br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Iraq

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests