Bush has a new neighbor: BAWAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[rob10]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14062166/

[smokin68]

Classic. Old "W" won't be anywhere to be found.

[glennwith2ns]

Some people don't know when their 15 minutes are up.

[l•k]

* * * * * *I have just begun to fight

[skrewt]

Nothing says "pee on your sons grave" like seditious rants.


She loves her son so much that she will buy land in Texas before she buys her son a headstone.

http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/126004.php

What a manipulative, opportunistic Byotch.

[geerair]

What a glorious tribute to her son.

Five acres to stick in the face of the chickenhawk who is responsible for Casey's death, Shrub Bush.

[James 3528]

They should have buried Mary Jo Kopechne at the Kennedy compound. Cassey volunteered to risk his life. She didn't

[oloenneker]

Originally posted by James 3528
They should have buried Mary Jo Kopechne at the Kennedy compound. Cassey volunteered to risk his life. She didn't

Damn, James!! You are one obsessed guy... You never give up on olde dirtbag Ted, do ya?

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
They should have buried Mary Jo Kopechne at the Kennedy compound. Cassey volunteered to risk his life. She didn't He didn't volunteer to die in an unjustified war.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
They should have buried Mary Jo Kopechne at the Kennedy compound. Cassey volunteered to risk his life. She didn't He didn't volunteer to die in an unjustified war. I liked you better when you weren't a pissy broken record and on the rag Barbara Streisand clone. He volunteered and you don't know what his feelings were, so STFU

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
I liked you better when you weren't a pissy broken record and on the rag Barbara Streisand clone. He volunteered and you don't know what his feelings were, so STFU [/B]I liked you better when you weren't a whining scratched CD and a on the prowl KKK member.

I know Casey didn't volunteer to be killed in an unjustified war, so PO.

[oloenneker]

Originally posted by James 3528
[QUOTE]Originally posted by geerair
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by James 3528
[B] so STFU


Uhmm... James, You are not allowed to use acronyms that you learnered from me in your rants... They contain trademarks™, and you are not privedleged to the STFU™...

Unless you can name the Band that coined the term...

[keither]

Originally posted by oloenneker

Originally posted by James 3528
They should have buried Mary Jo Kopechne at the Kennedy compound. Cassey volunteered to risk his life. She didn't

Damn, James!! You are one obsessed guy... You never give up on olde dirtbag Ted, do ya?

Proper question is do the LIEberal Democrat donkey voters of assachusetts ?

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
I liked you better when you weren't a pissy broken record and on the rag Barbara Streisand clone. He volunteered and you don't know what his feelings were, so STFU I liked you better when you weren't a whining scratched CD and a on the prowl KKK member.

I know Casey didn't volunteer to be killed in an unjustified war, so PO. [/B]

What I know that you don't because I did it and you haven't is that he volunteered, then he took a oath. After that you don't get to pic the vacation destinations and condo's Private Benjamin.

GW did't snatch Cassey from her arms. He was a grown man. You're just using her like the left does, as a tool.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
They should have buried Mary Jo Kopechne at the Kennedy compound. Cassey volunteered to risk his life. She didn't He didn't volunteer to die in an unjustified war.

So it's a good thing he didn't die in an unjustified war.
Fortunately for him congress approved it.
Now, if we can just get his mother to care enough to buy him a headstone.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528

What I know that you don't because I did it and you haven't is that he volunteered, then he took a oath. After that you don't get to pic the vacation destinations and condo's Private Benjamin.He volunteered to defend his country. Unjustified wars do not fit in that category.





GW did't snatch Cassey from her arms. He has snatched 2500 and counting to their deaths and thousands more wounded for reasons that were false and fabricated and changed every time the present reason was shown to be false.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

So it's a good thing he didn't die in an unjustified war.Unjustified and fabricated. A quagmire of death and wasted billions of dollars all for the glory of Dear Leader.






Fortunately for him congress approved it.Thanks to false and fabricated intelligence controlled by Bush and Cheney.



Now, if we can just get his mother to care enough to buy him a headstone.No need. This goldstar mother has produced a glorious, glowing tribute to her son with those five acres.

[chillbilly]

He volunteered to defend his country. Unjustified wars do not fit in that category.
__________________________________________________ _______

He willingly chose to defend his country.

Reliance on people like you to define what war is and isn't "justified" is irrelevant, and rightly so.

His "goldstar" mother has done nothing to honor her son's memory.
Instead, she has decided to dishonor her patriot son by kissing every enemy's ass our country has identified.

[James 3528]

Geer is another seasoned idiot on the growing list of idots around here. He's emulating Sheehan. Ignore him.

[ralphtheplumber]

Originally posted by geerair
Thanks to false and fabricated intelligence controlled by Bush and Cheney.
Already debunked multiple times here.


Originally posted by geerair
No need. This goldstar mother has produced a glorious, glowing tribute to her son with those five acres.
That's pretty funny. You know they had to get some other guy to claim he was a hurricane evacuee to buy the place, and then sell it again, right?

It's a monument to the deceit of the gold star people.

[skrewt]

Thanks to false and fabricated intelligence controlled by Bush and Cheney.

You are just about as naive as they come.
You act as if the president has some CIA agent whispering in his ear to exclusion of all other government officials.
The treasonous dems have declared the same intelligence as valid when it was BC boppin his way through office.
The same dems who claimed he didn't act on the intelligence prior to 9/11.
The same dems who say he shouldn't have acted on the intelligence from Iraq.
The same dems who claim that intelligence proven true, was not true, but it was sort of true, but those weren't the wmd's talked about even though they were.
The same dems who twist and leak every piece of classified information they get their monkey spankin hands on.
The same dems who boldly stand on foreign soil and talk sh#t about this country just to get applause.
The same dems who protest the funerals of fallen soldiers causing great pain to the loved ones they left behind.

The dems (aka. liberals) in this country are the biggest pieces of treasonous vermin ever to crawl out from under a rock.
Sell your koolaid somewhere else.
nobody's buyin here.

[keither]

Originally posted by skrewt

Thanks to false and fabricated intelligence controlled by Bush and Cheney.

You are just about as naive as they come.
You act as if the president has some CIA agent whispering in his ear to exclusion of all other government officials.
The treasonous dems have declared the same intelligence as valid when it was BC boppin his way through office.
The same dems who claimed he didn't act on the intelligence prior to 9/11.
The same dems who say he shouldn't have acted on the intelligence from Iraq.
The same dems who claim that intelligence proven true, was not true, but it was sort of true, but those weren't the wmd's talked about even though they were.
The same dems who twist and leak every piece of classified information they get their monkey spankin hands on.
The same dems who boldly stand on foreign soil and talk sh#t about this country just to get applause.
The same dems who protest the funerals of fallen soldiers causing great pain to the loved ones they left behind.

The dems (aka. liberals) in this country are the biggest pieces of treasonous vermin ever to crawl out from under a rock.
Sell your koolaid somewhere else.
nobody's buyin here.



ABSAFREAKINLOOTLEY.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by James 3528

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
They should have buried Mary Jo Kopechne at the Kennedy compound. Cassey volunteered to risk his life. She didn't He didn't volunteer to die in an unjustified war. I liked you better when you weren't a pissy broken record and on the rag Barbara Streisand clone. He volunteered and you don't know what his feelings were, so STFU

You did it again geer; you made me agree 100% with James.

[James 3528]

I have gone over intel flow a dozen times with Geer. It can't be created at the White House level. It is packaged and sent their and logged from the agency it comes from. Everything both the democrats and the republicans as well as the President is saved.

Clinton used it here when he mentions "weapons of mass destruction a 8 times".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/july-dec98/2irst.jpg

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[RoBoTeq]

Since Cindy has no respect for her son whatsoever and only uses his name to promote her ultra-liberal agenda against U.S. policy, I think it would be nice if this thread were to be considered a tribute to Casey.

I for one am extremely appreciative of the service that Casey gave to his country in order to do what he believed was the right thing. Thank you Casey.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Since Cindy has no respect for her son whatsoever and only uses his name to promote her ultra-liberal agenda against U.S. policy, I think it would be nice if this thread were to be considered a tribute to Casey.

I for one am extremely appreciative of the service that Casey gave to his country in order to do what he believed was the right thing. Thank you Casey.

He was a better person than his mother.
He truly knew how to place his priorities outside himself and give all.
Sadly his mother chooses to take a big public dump on his grave everyday.
She cared so much about her son, she gave up custody of him. When she criticized Bush she became the media darling of the moment. She didn't care enough to put a headstone on his grave, yet that didn't stop her from pissing away the life insurance on liberal agenda crap.

Casey only did one stupid thing....making his mother the beneficiary of the insurance policy.
A mother who never gave a rat's behind about him.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by skrewt

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Since Cindy has no respect for her son whatsoever and only uses his name to promote her ultra-liberal agenda against U.S. policy, I think it would be nice if this thread were to be considered a tribute to Casey.

I for one am extremely appreciative of the service that Casey gave to his country in order to do what he believed was the right thing. Thank you Casey.

He was a better person than his mother.


The raccoon walking across my back yard right now is a better person than Cindy Sheehan.

[rob10]

Originally posted by skrewt

Thanks to false and fabricated intelligence controlled by Bush and Cheney.

You are just about as naive as they come.
You act as if the president has some CIA agent whispering in his ear to exclusion of all other government officials.



Have a very close CIA agent. In fact, it is his very own father who is a former CIA director who probably still has close insider information!! You are the one who is NAIVE!! And a DUMBA$$ BUSHDROID!!

[James 3528]

:D

Priceless

[oloenneker]

From The Guardian, 7/29/06:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1832935,00.html

Bush cuts short holiday as anti-war neighbours move in

Oliver Burkeman in New York
Saturday July 29, 2006
The Guardian


The principle of neighbourliness is about to be stretched to its
limits in Crawford, Texas, where the well-known peace activist Cindy
Sheehan has bought a plot of land not far from the town's most famous
resident, George Bush.

Ms Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq two years ago aged 24,
will use the two hectare (five acre) plot as a permanent home for Camp
Casey, the roadside peace protest that dogged Mr Bush throughout last
summer.

The president traditionally spends a long August vacation at the
ranch, but this year he is curtailing his holiday to a fortnight -
ending it days before the advertised start of Ms Sheehan's protest.

"We are beginning to believe that he is frightened of us," she wrote
in a message to supporters, adding that this year's campaign would
begin two days earlier than scheduled, "so we can at least share part
of the summer with Georgie."

[r22jjc]

this country was founded by protesting ,tax evadeing,hemp farming long haired malcontents,and some folks gotta dog a mother for protesting about the loss of her child,...how the h..l did we git here? and what kind of moron would invade and try to hold a muslim middle eastern country? i got no problem with takin them down,in fact they should have rolled thru and got iran&sryia at the same time,and then come home.there aint 10000 of those folk worth one of our kids....and why does our gov. look the other way as the chinese suplly these knucleheads? next election vote for change.these boys talk one game and play another.

[geerair]

Originally posted by ralphtheplumber

Already debunked multiple times here.Laughable. You boys trotted out wornout talking points that might convince rabid acolytes of Dear Leader but not rational folks.




It's a monument to the deceit of the gold star people. Why do you hate America and Gold Star moms?

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

You act as if the president has some CIA agent whispering in his ear to exclusion of all other government officials.Nope, he had the OSP, Chalabi and Curveball.



The treasonous dems have declared the same intelligence as valid when it was BC boppin his way through office.Wasn't the same intel Bush based his excursion on.


The same dems who claimed he didn't act on the intelligence prior to 9/11.Who dat? Names please.



The same dems who say he shouldn't have acted on the intelligence from Iraq.Who's he?



The same dems who claim that intelligence proven true, was not true, but it was sort of true, but those weren't the wmd's talked about even though they were.Ummmmm........that was the Defense Department.


The same dems who twist and leak every piece of classified information they get their monkey spankin hands on.Kinda like Rove, Libby and Cheney.



The same dems who protest the funerals of fallen soldiers causing great pain to the loved ones they left behind.Ummmmmm.........that would be one of your fellow Christian buddies.






The dems (aka. liberals) in this country are the biggest pieces of treasonous vermin ever to crawl out from under a rock.Oh dear, should we have them all shot?




Sell your koolaid somewhere else.
nobody's buyin here.Priceless.

[geerair]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
You did it again geer; you made me agree 100% with James. My pleasure.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
I have gone over intel flow a dozen times with Geer. It can't be created at the White House level.Never said it could dimbulb.


It is packaged and sent their and logged from the agency it comes from. Everything both the democrats and the republicans as well as the President is saved.Oh, I guess you forgot about curveball, the OSP and Chalabi.







Clinton used it here when he mentions "weapons of mass destruction a 8 times".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/july-dec98/2irst.jpg

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America. I love it everytime james posts this. He still hasn't gotten it.


Check the date.

[skrewt]

I love it everytime james posts this. He still hasn't gotten it.


Check the date.


I love how you libs try to dismiss this based on the date, as if the UN did anything to change the facts between then and now.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt


She cared so much about her son, she gave up custody of him.False.



When she criticized Bush she became the media darling of the moment. She didn't care enough to put a headstone on his grave, yet that didn't stop her from pissing away the life insurance on liberal agenda crap.What are you babbling about? Casey has an elegant headstone paid for by Cindy Sheehan.

[skrewt]

Nope, he had the OSP, Chalabi and Curveball.

Laughable.



Wasn't the same intel Bush based his excursion on.
Didn't realize you were on the senate intelligence committee.
again laughable.


Who dat? Names please.
Hillary stood on the floor of the senate holding a NY times headline that said "Bush Knew".


Who's he?
every dem



Ummmmm........that was the Defense Department.
Not all the defense department.
If not pre 1991 WMD's, then which ones?
We knew he was not being forthcoming about the status of these weapons and we were also pretty sure he wasn't producing more at that time.
We had intelligence that suggested he was trying to restart his programs, but hadn't yet.
So where are the "other" WMD's supposed to have come from.
These were indeed the exact weapons referenced in the intelligence.
You just latch onto the one quote that gives you a chubby and drink your koolaid.


Kinda like Rove, Libby and Cheney.
They never leaked any classified information or broke any law.
Leave Valerie Plaime out of this because she was a low level CIA employee and it has already been determined that she was not covered under the identity protection statutes.
She is just a democrat operative trying to stir the pot.
You got some koolaid on your chin.


Ummmmmm.........that would be one of your fellow Christian buddies.
Certainly they are not christian conservatives.
They must be Clinton christians.
Carry a bible, smile for the camera, then boink interns.



Priceless.
I have no idea the price of liberal koolaid...I will defer to your experience in this matter.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

I love how you libs try to dismiss this based on the date, as if the UN did anything to change the facts between then and now.This from a clown who is fast approaching the title of most false statements by a Bush groupie. And that ladies and gentelmen includes somes mighty fierce competition.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt

I love how you libs try to dismiss this based on the date, as if the UN did anything to change the facts between then and now.This from a clown who is fast approaching the title of most false statements by a Bush groupie. And that ladies and gentelmen includes somes mighty fierce competition.


False as in...disagrees with you.
Shame I have the facts on my side.
All you have is your koolaid.
The red mustache looks good on you though.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

Laughable.Not to Bush.



Didn't realize you were on the senate intelligence committee.
again laughable.Don't need to be. You would know that except you show yourself to be woefully uninformed.


Hillary stood on the floor of the senate holding a NY times headline that said "Bush Knew".He did.


every demEven Leiberman?



Not all the defense department.Yes, all Defense Department. Even Fox reported it.


If not pre 1991 WMD's, then which ones?
We knew he was not being forthcoming about the status of these weapons and we were also pretty sure he wasn't producing more at that time.
We had intelligence that suggested he was trying to restart his programs, but hadn't yet.
So where are the "other" WMD's supposed to have come from.
These were indeed the exact weapons referenced in the intelligence.
You just latch onto the one quote that gives you a chubby and drink your koolaid.Go talk to the experts at the DD or better yet talk to ISG. Or even better, talk to Dear Leader.

Maybe best of all, stay out of freeperland, they are doing your credibility no favors.


They never leaked any classified information or broke any law.
Leave Valerie Plaime out of this because she was a low level CIA employee and it has already been determined that she was not covered under the identity protection statutes.
She is just a democrat operative trying to stir the pot.
You got some koolaid on your chin.Ah, you would know better than the CIA how their employees are classified? Perhaps you should rush to Langley and tell those CIA guys they are wrong. I'm sure they would be impressed with you.




Certainly they are not christian conservatives.Sure they are. They are loud, ignorant and repulsive. Classic fundies on the skrewt model.




I have no idea the price of liberal koolaid...I will defer to your experience in this matter.Probably the same price as that Freeper/Republican swill you ingest by the carload.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

False as in...disagrees with you.Nah, false as in your info seems to be gotten from e-mail urban legend articles and the ever unreliable screeching loons in freeperland.




Shame I have the facts on my side.Reality says no. Hell, you posted multiple urban legends and other falsehoods just tonight alone.

[ralphtheplumber]

Originally posted by geerair
Why do you hate America and Gold Star moms?
Hmm. I pointed out that this group found a guy to claim he was a hurricane evacuee and buy some property for them, and you conclude from this that I hate America?

I guess that's really the only reply possible, since you can't deny that it's true.

[James 3528]

Geer tried this before, Sheehan has been rejected by the Gold Star's

[rubberduck]

Originally posted by skrewt
Nothing says "pee on your sons grave" like seditious rants.


She loves her son so much that she will buy land in Texas before she buys her son a headstone.

http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/126004.php

What a manipulative, opportunistic Byotch.

Maybe she hasn't purchased one because she is afraid of desecration of vandalism. There are alot of people out the with misdirected hostilities who don't know how to respect themselves. The woman lost her son take it easy. Maybe you are an oportunistic byotch. Taking advantage of someone elses post to spew venom? Change your tampon and calm down.

[geerair]

Originally posted by ralphtheplumber
Hmm. I pointed out that this group found a guy to claim he was a hurricane evacuee and buy some property for them, and you conclude from this that I hate America?Sheehan is a Gold Star mother.

Gold Star mothers are as american as apple pie.


Spreading rumors about Gold Star mothers is hateful.


You hate America.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
Geer tried this before, Sheehan has been rejected by the Gold Star's Myth.

[rubberduck]

Originally posted by rubberduck

Originally posted by skrewt
Nothing says "pee on your sons grave" like seditious rants.


She loves her son so much that she will buy land in Texas before she buys her son a headstone.

http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/126004.php

What a manipulative, opportunistic Byotch.

Maybe she hasn't purchased one because she is afraid of desecration or vandalism. There are alot of people out the with misdirected hostilities who don't know how to respect themselves. The woman lost her son take it easy. Maybe you are an oportunistic byotch. Taking advantage of someone elses post to spew venom? Change your tampon and calm down.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by ralphtheplumber
Hmm. I pointed out that this group found a guy to claim he was a hurricane evacuee and buy some property for them, and you conclude from this that I hate America?Sheehan is a Gold Star mother.

Gold Star mothers are as american as apple pie.


Spreading rumors about Gold Star mothers is hateful.


You hate America.



You are right....Gold Star Mothers are as american as apple pie.
I would not classify Ms. Sheehan among the group known commonly as "mother". Since she gave up the custody of her son, produced a second and gave him away too.
Hardly what I would call "mother".
She is a typical liberal psycophant exploiting her sons death to extend her 15 minutes of infamy.

Where's the headstone mother?

Why do you hate mothers geer?
Is she your idea of Mom?
I suppose she would be since you obviously are lacking in many emotional areas.

I still laugh at your posts.
When I first started posting here you worked very hard at appearing Enlightened, informed, progressive and moderate.
I saw through that charade and you have since dropped all false fronts and shown yourself to be a full fledged wacked out liberal freak.
Priceless.

[ralphtheplumber]

Originally posted by geerair
Sheehan is a Gold Star mother.

Gold Star mothers are as american as apple pie.
The others here are already beating you up on this one, so i'm going to stay out of the way.


Originally posted by geerair
Spreading rumors about Gold Star mothers is hateful.
Wrong.


Gerry Fonseca says he purchased the 5-acre parcel, which cost more than $52,000. It was bought with the money frome her son, Casey's, life insurance policy.

"I doubt they would have sold her the property if she tried to buy it herself," said Foncseca.

"I feel deceived," said Celia Ramsey, who sold the land to Cindy Sheehan through a third party. She talked to News Channel 25 exclusively on the matter. "I would have never sold it to Sheehan. Nobody wants them here."

The Ramsey's claim Fonseca told them he was an evacuee from Hurricane Katrina.


Originally posted by geerair
You hate America.
Wrong again.

Wrong premise, wrong conclusion, just completely wrong.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
Geer tried this before, Sheehan has been rejected by the Gold Star's Myth.

One more time, Ms. Streisand.


http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15112461&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt


You are right....Gold Star Mothers are as american as apple pie.
I would not classify Ms. Sheehan among the group known commonly as "mother". Since she gave up the custody of her son, produced a second and gave him away too. Hardly what I would call "mother".

Sheehan never gave up custody of her sons.

I would not classify you as among the group known commonly known as honest.



Where's the headstone mother?On Casey's grave. where else would it be?



I still laugh at your posts.
When I first started posting here you worked very hard at appearing Enlightened, informed, progressive and moderate.
I saw through that charade and you have since dropped all false fronts and shown yourself to be a full fledged wacked out liberal freak.
Priceless.Laugh? Then I have accomplished something as your posts indicate that you are a humorless, bitter shell of a man whose self-worth seems to be tied to the success of the Bush administration. With the failure of the Bush administration is all areas, it is no wonder you come off as a negative, extremely bitter shlub.

[geerair]

Originally posted by ralphtheplumber

Gerry Fonseca says he purchased the 5-acre parcel, which cost more than $52,000. It was bought with the money frome her son, Casey's, life insurance policy.

"I doubt they would have sold her the property if she tried to buy it herself," said Foncseca.

"I feel deceived," said Celia Ramsey, who sold the land to Cindy Sheehan through a third party. She talked to News Channel 25 exclusively on the matter. "I would have never sold it to Sheehan. Nobody wants them here."

The Ramsey's claim Fonseca told them he was an evacuee from Hurricane Katrina. I stand corrected and apologize to you Ralph for my comments.



[Edited by geerair on 07-31-2006 at 11:59 AM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528

One more time, Ms. Streisand.


http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15112461&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6 One more time Mr. Birch. A Gold Star mother is any, repeat any mother who has lost a child in the line of duty. It is not necessary to belong to the Gold Star Mothers Club to be a Gold Star mother. Your article points this out.




Thanks for the confirmation.

[tonys]

I think homer simpson had a saying reflective of Jimmy's 100,000,000 slip-up:

"duuuw"

[geerair]

Yeah, shoot your foot syndrome. A james specialty.

[skrewt]

Sheehan never gave up custody of her sons.

Wrong skippy


On Casey's grave. where else would it be?

No headstone, wrong again monkeyboy


Laugh? Then I have accomplished something as your posts indicate that you are a humorless, bitter shell of a man whose self-worth seems to be tied to the success of the Bush administration. With the failure of the Bush administration is all areas, it is no wonder you come off as a negative, extremely bitter shlub.

You're the one who sees only failure and doom in our future. If it isn't Bush it's the environment with you guys. The "sky is falling" mentality is strictly a liberal trademark.
I'm sorry I seem negative to you, but I suppose that would be the case of anyone I had to tell he was wrong many times a day.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
Wrong skippySheehan did not, repeat did not give up custody of Casey. Sheehan was married to Casey's father for 28 years. Seeing as how Casey was 24 when he was killed, your assertion is not only mathematically impossible but also not logical.

Shame, shame on you for continuing to spread vicious gossip.








No headstone, wrong again monkeyboyHere is
a picture of it skippy:

http://lufkindailymuse.com/?p=345




You're the one who sees only failure and doom in our future. If it isn't Bush it's the environment with you guys. The "sky is falling" mentality is strictly a liberal trademark.I believe it was the Bush administration that was breathlessly pronouncing our doom with the mushroom cloud fiasco.





I'm sorry I seem negative to you, but I suppose that would be the case of anyone I had to tell he was wrong many times a day. Not only are you a self-admitted negative, bitter person but your assertions are masterpieces in priceless irony. You continue to make glaring dead wrong assertions, two in just this one post, while lying about correcting other people's alleged wrongs.

Son, you have outclassed every bit of talent in the Priceless Irony Competition.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528

One more time, Ms. Streisand.


http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15112461&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6 One more time Mr. Birch. A Gold Star mother is any, repeat any mother who has lost a child in the line of duty. It is not necessary to belong to the Gold Star Mothers Club to be a Gold Star mother. Your article points this out.




Thanks for the confirmation.

She is not affiliated with "Gold Star Mothers" The organization has said that and it is organized. That is what the article implied, it confirmed nothing in respect to your claim, it only reaffirmed mine. Sheehan was a co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace" With your logic she can also be called a "Blue Star Mom or a Red Star Mom".

Wrong again Ms Streisand


Let Mr. Benzine know watching The Simpson's isn't making him look any smarter than Rob.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528


She is not affiliated with "Gold Star Mothers" The organization has said that and it is organized.Never said she was Einstein.



That is what the article implied, it confirmed nothing in respect to your claim, it only reaffirmed mine. Read it again.



With your logic she can also be called a "Blue Star Mom or a Red Star Mom".She was a blue star mom. I don't know what a red star mom is.

For someone who boasts about his military knowledge, you seem to have a few blindspots.






Wrong again Ms StreisandNope, Mr. Birch

[James 3528]

You can call her a Purple Star with Green polkadots mom.

[tonys]

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Benzene.asp?sitearea=PED

a little reading for the dumb-a$$...I meant jimmy8675309

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
You can call her a Purple Star with Green polkadots mom.You can call her what you want, just know that you are calling the mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty vile names for the sake of petty partisan politics.

That Casey was killed in the line of duty makes her a Gold Star Mother on that basis alone.

Your article confirms it and a quote from the Gold Star Mothers Club confirms it.


Support The Troops? No evidence of that here.

[rubberduck]

I have seen some pretty tasteless topics. I can't believe that someone would walk on this woman's loss. People do irrational things when consumed with grief, and it is our duty as a society to step back and allow them this part of the grieving process. Whether or not you agree with her politics or not you should at least have morals to know when to leave it alone.

[James 3528]

Her grieving period is over. She is nothing but a tool. The Malkin film says it all. I have respect for mothers who have lost sons in wars, I know a few. But Sheehan is a media pig. Anyone that doesn't know that and her comments on Hugo Chavez and other things not having to do with the war are the ones that should leave it alone. She had a chance to answer why her sons grave is unmarked. She didn't even apply for the free headstone. Sheehan hates America

[skrewt]

Originally posted by rubberduck
I have seen some pretty tasteless topics. I can't believe that someone would walk on this woman's loss. People do irrational things when consumed with grief, and it is our duty as a society to step back and allow them this part of the grieving process. Whether or not you agree with her politics or not you should at least have morals to know when to leave it alone.

Absa-friggin-lootly NOT!
Her crap is putting other sons in danger.
She has no right to do that.
I don't care how deep her grief is.
She is a treasonous whore on the same level as Jane Fonda.
My only wish is that when she dies, nobody finds the time to put a headstone on her grave, just like she's too "busy" to get one for her son.

[James 3528]

Cindy in her own words


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JuTFtfmtEQ

The left should feel quilty for using this woman. Besides the fact her son is dead, she is not that smart.

[rubberduck]

Nothing is more American that the right to protest. She doesn't agree with what going on and you don't agree with what she is doing. It's all good. That what this county is about and one of the priciples that it was founded on. Just because you don't agree with what she says doesn't mean she hates America? I don't completely understand why you say this. Could you please elaborate?

[James 3528]

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/01/30/imageCAR10201291942.jpg

[RoBoTeq]

You liberal scumbags can try to spin this issue anyway you want, but it still comes up the same. Cindy Shehan was a negligent mother whiler her son was alive and is a negligent mother now that her son is dead. She only cares about what makes her famous and spits on her own sons beliefs every time she opens her mouth.

Cindy Sheehan is a common whore, being readily used by anti-American factions within this country and abroad. Her family does not support her any more then she supports her son. She is despicable. Only slightly more then those who support her actions.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
You liberal scumbags can try to spin this issue anyway you want, but it still comes up the same. Cindy Shehan was a negligent mother whiler her son was alive and is a negligent mother now that her son is dead. She only cares about what makes her famous and spits on her own sons beliefs every time she opens her mouth.

Cindy Sheehan is a common whore, being readily used by anti-American factions within this country and abroad. Her family does not support her any more then she supports her son. She is despicable. Only slightly more then those who support her actions.

Very well said, hear hear.

[rob10]

Originally posted by skrewt

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
You liberal scumbags can try to spin this issue anyway you want, but it still comes up the same. Cindy Shehan was a negligent mother whiler her son was alive and is a negligent mother now that her son is dead. She only cares about what makes her famous and spits on her own sons beliefs every time she opens her mouth.

Cindy Sheehan is a common whore, being readily used by anti-American factions within this country and abroad. Her family does not support her any more then she supports her son. She is despicable. Only slightly more then those who support her actions.

Very well said, hear hear. Need to get a room. How many more Amercan sons do we have to sacrifice in the name of GW's stupidity and personal GREED!!

[skrewt]

Originally posted by rob10

Originally posted by skrewt

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
You liberal scumbags can try to spin this issue anyway you want, but it still comes up the same. Cindy Shehan was a negligent mother whiler her son was alive and is a negligent mother now that her son is dead. She only cares about what makes her famous and spits on her own sons beliefs every time she opens her mouth.

Cindy Sheehan is a common whore, being readily used by anti-American factions within this country and abroad. Her family does not support her any more then she supports her son. She is despicable. Only slightly more then those who support her actions.

Very well said, hear hear. Need to get a room. How many more Amercan sons do we have to sacrifice in the name of GW's stupidity and personal GREED!!

Last time I looked it was a voluteer military.
You're hatred is unbecoming, you should try therapy.

[rubberduck]

There are alot of folks here that could use therapy. ALL OF YOU.