| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2005 01:32:03 AM |
| Object: |
Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
Yes, I agree, Bush actually thinks he made some sort of
effort to diffuse the whole Cindy Sheehan/Camp Casey
issue.
But he hasn't.
That is to say, what efforts he has made have been within
strict limits, disallowing any hope of ever addressing the
root problem.
The fact is, the Cindy Sheehan story simply shouldn't have
legs. It does have legs -- *Duh* -- but it shouldn't. There
is nothing more natural or expected than a mother being
upset & angry at the loss of her young son. And the other
angle, what he died for -- the fact that not one of us even
knows why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place --
is a story that the media avoids at all cost.
Cindy Sheehan's story has legs because of the right wing,
and the only way Bush could have put it to rest would
have been to openly chastise his media lap dogs. Not ignore
his robots as he has done, not whisper in their ear, but to
openly & publicly chastise his minions by name. Bush has
made a career out of cowering behind these people as they
lied for him (and about his opponents), and nobody but the
most biased wingnut could see Bush's comments thus
far as anything other than the latest example of him allowing
his robots to do his dirty work, while he hangs back and
pretends he's above it all.
Drudge.
Limbaugh.
O'Reilly and just about the rest of the GOP-TV....errrr...
"Fox news" commentators.
Denounce them & their smears against Cindy Sheehan by
name.
Then the left has nothing to defend against. Then the middle
has nothing to be offended by. The opposition is disarmed.
And the lunatic right has nothing to fire shotguns at, or
drive pickup trucks over. They too are disarmed.
But, at his core, if nothing else Bush is a coward. To
chastise his media lapdogs is to risk offending them. That
might actually cost Bush something for the first time in his
spoiled-rotten life. If Bush offended them then, who knows?
Maybe they won't come in *Exactly* on queue the next time
he needs them to pretend another lunatic fringe judge is
somehow a "moderate," or a staunch racist is as unbigoted
as they come.
The right wing has made the Cindy Sheehan story. Bush
could have unmade it. He wouldn't. Because, in the end,
what the ***** does Bush care? Things couldn't ever get
so ugly that Bush would suffer regrets. What's a little
more pain to a Bush? What's a little more violence?
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
18 Aug 2005 06:53:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:32:03 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:
angle, what he died for -- the fact that not one of us even
knows why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place --
:
Don't include me in your sweeping ignorance, please.
I do know what he was sent their for.
Most of the world, outside the USA, knows why her son was sent there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
18 Aug 2005 11:53:02 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
angle, what he died for -- the fact that not one of us even
knows why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place --
Don't include me in your sweeping ignorance, please.
I do know what he was sent their for.
Not to take anything away from the breadth & scope of your
fantasy, but do you realize that you've completely missed
the subject of my post?
I was talking about how Bush could have -- if he wasn't
a cowrdly chicken ***** -- dissfused the entire Cindy
Sheehan/Camp Casey issue.
Though, it's always nice to see that you retards are still
denying reality. You know why Bush sent Americans to
die in Iraq? The real reason? Not the endless stream of
excuses -- the "Reason du Jour" -- that the administration
has been pissing out these last three years, but the *Real*
reason?
Seriously. You couldn't be that insane... could you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
19 Aug 2005 04:35:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:53:02 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
angle, what he died for -- the fact that not one of us even
knows why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place --
Don't include me in your sweeping ignorance, please.
I do know what he was sent their for.
Not to take anything away from the breadth & scope of your
fantasy, but do you realize that you've completely missed
the subject of my post?
I was talking about how Bush could have -- if he wasn't
a cowrdly chicken ***** -- dissfused the entire Cindy
Sheehan/Camp Casey issue.
Though, it's always nice to see that you retards are still
denying reality. You know why Bush sent Americans to
die in Iraq? The real reason? Not the endless stream of
excuses -- the "Reason du Jour" -- that the administration
has been pissing out these last three years, but the *Real*
reason?
Seriously. You couldn't be that insane... could you?
What are you on about?
(I was about to congratulate you for an apt summary in another post:
"Seriously -- all kidding aside -- if Bush threw away hundreds of
billions of taxpayer dollars, killed thousands of Americans, created
thousands of new terrorists, crushed the U.S. dollar and completely
destabalized the world oil market (kicking the U.S. economy in the
nuts) ONLY TO BRING DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ, Bush needs to not only be
impeached but indicted. As a dangerous psycho who has killed tens of
thousands, he needs to stand trial for his crimes, his murders")
But back to this line of "reasoning":
You said:
" the fact that not one of us even knows why her son was sent to Iraq
in the first place"
I am claiming that I do know:
The reason that her son was sent to Iraq was as a bit player in the
USA Empire building.
Specifically, to get control of the "the most stupendous energy
reserves that the world has ever known", according to U.S. State
Department and national security memoranda from the 40s and 50s.
What' s"insane" about that opinion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
20 Aug 2005 03:12:04 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
But back to this line of "reasoning":
You said:
" the fact that not one of us even knows why her son was sent
to Iraq in the first place"
The point was that this fact isn't news.
I am claiming that I do know:
The reason that her son was sent to Iraq was as a bit player
in the USA Empire building.
And that is -- at it's exreme best -- a guess. You don't "know."
You believe. You think. You guess.
Specifically, to get control of the "the most stupendous
energy reserves that the world has ever known", according
to U.S. State Department and national security memoranda
from the 40s and 50s.
What' s"insane" about that opinion?
Because it is nothing more than a guess. A good guess? Yes.
But, it does have obvious flaws. Chief amongst them is the
required assumption that there are no further goals. That is
to say, there are no additional goals which are based on
the success of this particular goal.
Because, if there were such other goals than grabbing the
oil wouldn't be the reason Cindy Sheehan's son was
sent to Iraq to die. Iraq would simply be a step towards
that ultimate goal, without which her son would be alive
today.
So, if Iraq is merely a step -- a bucket to hit before
advancing to the next phase -- then grabbing Iraq's oil
isn't "The goal."
Plenty have speculated that there are further steps,
an ultimate "goal."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
20 Aug 2005 05:15:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:12:04 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
But back to this line of "reasoning":
You said:
" the fact that not one of us even knows why her son was sent
to Iraq in the first place"
The point was that this fact isn't news.
I am claiming that I do know:
The reason that her son was sent to Iraq was as a bit player
in the USA Empire building.
And that is -- at it's exreme best -- a guess. You don't "know."
You believe. You think. You guess.
Specifically, to get control of the "the most stupendous
energy reserves that the world has ever known", according
to U.S. State Department and national security memoranda
from the 40s and 50s.
What' s"insane" about that opinion?
Because it is nothing more than a guess. A good guess? Yes.
But, it does have obvious flaws. Chief amongst them is the
required assumption that there are no further goals. That is
to say, there are no additional goals which are based on
the success of this particular goal.
I did consider expanding my reply to include the different temporal
goal subsets:
Immediate, proximate, distal, ultimate, and so-on.
I didn't because I assumed that you would understand that I was
referring to the immediate as well as the proximate.
And because it wasn't worth the the typing.
And still isn't.
Because, if there were such other goals than grabbing the
oil wouldn't be the reason Cindy Sheehan's son was
sent to Iraq to die. Iraq would simply be a step towards
that ultimate goal, without which her son would be alive
today.
So, if Iraq is merely a step -- a bucket to hit before
advancing to the next phase -- then grabbing Iraq's oil
isn't "The goal."
Plenty have speculated that there are further steps,
an ultimate "goal."
You repeat "grabbing the oil".
That is not what I said, or meant.
I said getting control over it.
Both in the short term, and the long term.
In other words both in the proximate and the ultimate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
18 Aug 2005 11:16:11 AM |
|
|
on 18 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Michael Gray
(fleetg@newsguy.spam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:32:03 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:
angle, what he died for -- the fact that not one of us even
knows why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place --
:
Don't include me in your sweeping ignorance, please.
I do know what he was sent their for.
Most of the world, outside the USA, knows why her son was sent there.
To secure the oil. OH! And git the WMDs! Can't fergit the WMDs!
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
21 Aug 2005 10:12:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:16:11 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
on 18 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Michael Gray
(fleetg@newsguy.spam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:32:03 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:
angle, what he died for -- the fact that not one of us even
knows why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place --
:
Don't include me in your sweeping ignorance, please.
I do know what he was sent their for.
Most of the world, outside the USA, knows why her son was sent there.
To secure the oil. OH! And git the WMDs! Can't fergit the WMDs!
There weren't any WMD's. That line was invented when the first excuse
was shown to be a lie.
And Shrubs ego [paraphrased " all great presidents preside during war]
and 'holy stock portfolio.'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
18 Aug 2005 11:56:14 AM |
|
|
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns96B65E78B9086vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 18 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Michael Gray
(fleetg@newsguy.spam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:32:03 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:
angle, what he died for -- the fact that not one of us even
knows why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place --
:
Don't include me in your sweeping ignorance, please.
I do know what he was sent their for.
Most of the world, outside the USA, knows why her son was sent there.
To secure the oil. OH! And git the WMDs! Can't fergit the WMDs!
That must be why the Iraqi parliament is negotiating over how to
allocate their oil income between provinces.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The reason a large block of the country doesn’t recall Bush’s speeches
calling for Iraqi liberation is that they simply were not listening.
After all, they had already decided that they knew what Bush “really”
meant, so they ignored what he said."
http://blog.ianhamet.com/index.php/archive/2005/04/15/945/
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
18 Aug 2005 11:59:20 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
To secure the oil. OH! And git the WMDs! Can't fergit the WMDs!
That must be why the Iraqi parliament is negotiating over how to
allocate their oil income between provinces.
Seriously -- all kidding aside -- if Bush threw away hundreds of billions
of taxpayer dollars, killed thousands of Americans, created thousands of
new terrorists, crushed the U.S. dollar and completely destabalized the
world oil market (kicking the U.S. economy in the nuts) ONLY TO BRING
DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ, Bush needs to not only be impeached but
indicted. As a dangerous psycho who has killed tens of thousands, he needs
to stand trial for his crimes, his murders.
Please. Get some frigging perspective going. For once. *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
19 Aug 2005 11:09:56 PM |
|
|
In article <l-OdnZ2dnZ3O9VC8nZ2dnU35mN6dnZ2dRVn-0Z2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
JTEM <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
To secure the oil. OH! And git the WMDs! Can't fergit the WMDs!
That must be why the Iraqi parliament is negotiating over how to
allocate their oil income between provinces.
Seriously -- all kidding aside -- if Bush threw away hundreds of billions
of taxpayer dollars, killed thousands of Americans, created thousands of
new terrorists, crushed the U.S. dollar and completely destabalized the
world oil market (kicking the U.S. economy in the nuts) ONLY TO BRING
DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ, Bush needs to not only be impeached but
indicted. As a dangerous psycho who has killed tens of thousands, he needs
to stand trial for his crimes, his murders.
Please. Get some frigging perspective going. For once. *****.
Too bad we can't nominate this one for AQOTM.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Sheehan: What Bush should have done differently |
20 Aug 2005 01:54:53 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 00:09:56 -0400, Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
In article <l-OdnZ2dnZ3O9VC8nZ2dnU35mN6dnZ2dRVn-0Z2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
JTEM <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
To secure the oil. OH! And git the WMDs! Can't fergit the WMDs!
That must be why the Iraqi parliament is negotiating over how to
allocate their oil income between provinces.
Seriously -- all kidding aside -- if Bush threw away hundreds of billions
of taxpayer dollars, killed thousands of Americans, created thousands of
new terrorists, crushed the U.S. dollar and completely destabalized the
world oil market (kicking the U.S. economy in the nuts) ONLY TO BRING
DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ, Bush needs to not only be impeached but
indicted. As a dangerous psycho who has killed tens of thousands, he needs
to stand trial for his crimes, his murders.
Please. Get some frigging perspective going. For once. *****.
Too bad we can't nominate this one for AQOTM.
Sean C
What's holding you back?
I see that it's posted solely to a.a.
Is there a prohibition against political topic posts being nominated?
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Fred Stone Calls Fred Stone a Liar: "I Was For Iraq Oil Money Before I Was Against It." |
18 Aug 2005 10:43:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:56:14 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns96B65E78B9086vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 18 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Michael Gray
(fleetg@newsguy.spam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:32:03 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:
angle, what he died for -- the fact that not one of us even
knows why her son was sent to Iraq in the first place --
:
Don't include me in your sweeping ignorance, please.
I do know what he was sent their for.
Most of the world, outside the USA, knows why her son was sent there.
To secure the oil. OH! And git the WMDs! Can't fergit the WMDs!
That must be why the Iraqi parliament is negotiating over how to
allocate their oil income between provinces.
Hmmm, that sounds a bit different from the
WMD/CakeWalk/Oil$$$/GreetUsWithFlowers War You NeoCon traitors sold us
2 years ago.
=================================
"Yes, I'd expect that buying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
capital equipment from US companies will spur the economy,
particularly since Iraq will undoubtedly end up paying for every bit
of it (and a hefty profit) from oil revenues."
-Fred Stone, 6/30/2003
===================================
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1861 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
