Going all the way back to the beginning, I have to agree with dabe that Dr. Guy misconstrued the statement. Ms. Sheehan started out to meet with the president. He refused to meet with her, and with all the free exposure the media gave her, she ended up forming a movement of some sort. This would not have been possible if the President had met with her as she originally hoped.

However, I also have to agree with Daiwa that this seems to have very strong echoes of the Vietnam-Era protests. Obviously, as per dabe's misinterpretation of Daiwa's remarks, people aren't longing for Viet Nam back. But it does seem that a bunch of disaffected individuals want to take part in a big protest, and to feel that they've had some impact on the direction of the nation, regardless of whether that's a good direction for it to be going in (as has many times been pointed out, Viet Nam generals eventually counted on US protests to help the Vietnamese win).

Citahellion makes some good points. And yes, the NV Generals particularly tried to capitilize on the dissent in the U.S. Saddam and Bin Laden both said from the outset that they would make mothers cry and make the streets run with blood until the American people rose up against their government. They made that tactic visible right away, no secret.

In particular I appreciate the good interpretations of the original issue being discussed, I went after only the Viet Nam-Iraq link. That is what healthy, productive discussion is about, I appreciated being amde to think. I may not fully agree with some of the views expressed about echoes of the Viet Nam-era, but it was well put and caused me to think about it.

"we need to get the Dutch to rebuild, and not the French" I try to avoid the French bashing in all this, but that is humorous and almost makes sense

I think my possible final word on this is to use history as a caution. The present day "movement" should avoid falling in to the trap of only wanting to bash a particular individual (Bush) if they want to be taken seriously. Don't follow the lead of the Democratic pundits from the election, it was wrong and failed. Stick to real issues and real events. Leave individuals out of it and stick to the point. There was a tendancy in the early 70s to start leaning that way with Nixon when it became clear he had mental health issues. But that was abandoned and the issue stuck. His transgressions were then addressed as a separate issue to resolve. Let me remind Dabe that Nixon was elected based mostly on his promise to get out of Viet Nam and the belief by many that he could do it, including many from the "movement". They did not vote on who he was or the party he belonged to, they voted on his liklihood to accomplish the goal of ending the war (people from the left of that time I amreferring to).

I also want to caution that the need is there to understand the difference between those we find we have to fight. When Pearl Harbor happened, there was a clear understanding of the need. When Korea and Viet Nam happened, the need was less clear, although not necessarily illegitimate, just less clear. In the war against the extremists, it as clear as Pearl Harbor. Pulling out of Iraq will not end the war with the terrorists, that existed before Iraq. All it will accomplish now is to gibve the extremists breathing space to re-constitute and bring the war back to us, on our front steps. If we had abandoned our fight with the Imperial Japanese Army at Gaudalcanal when we saw how bloody it could get, they would have continued to try and take us out.

The extremists, particularly Bin Laden, have made no secret of the fact that want world domination and conversion to their way of life. They have made no secret that they view the .S. as the main obstacle to their accomplishing that. Don't close your ears and eyes when you see how ugly war can be, look carefully at who we are fighting and what they are saying and then decide if you can live by their rules.

On the point that terrorists did not exist in Iraq until we showed up I remind everybody of the Abu Sayyaf group (active in the Phillipines) and the Ansar al-Islam group who were the main manufacturers of terrorist Sarin. Both called Northern Iraq home base and the latter was in part financed by Hussein as long as they promised to go after the U.S., Turkey and Iran. In fact the only chemical weapon based items found after we entered Iraq were in the al-Islam camps. Try to make Hussain the innocent victim all you want, but he was an active and vital component of the growth of terrorism that wanted to target us in the U.S.

Going all the way back to the beginning, I have to agree with dabe that Dr. Guy misconstrued the statement.

You cannot misconstrue something unless you parapharase it and mess it up.  I quoted her verbatim. 

I think it is also telling that her Husband started the divorce before she started Camp Casey, and the reasons given were for her political activism.  Which indicates she never wanted to see Bush (she already had), she just wanted to pitch a fit.

Now note, that the second paragraph is conjecture on my part.  Backed up by her statements, actions and those of the ones around her.  You may disagree with me, but please back it up with your own conjecture, unlike what Dabe did.

"we need to get the Dutch to rebuild, and not the French" I try to avoid the French bashing in all this, but that is humorous and almost makes sense

I am 75% french by ancestry, so I have no reservations in that regard.

Here are but a few. All based on investigative journalism. You know that wonderful skill now being squashed by the dubya regime......

I'm still laughing at what you posted. Your idea of "investigative jounalism" is anything Michael Moore puts out.

OK now show me some of your links, and we'll compare. Otherwise, I really don't need your empty criticism.

Dabe, you know constantly post accusations from far left web sites that offer no proof of their accusations. The first one comes to mind about Bush being a "manic depressive". You find a far left website that says something like that and you believe it. It doesn't matter if there is absolutely no proof to back it up, it only matters that you hate Bush and you will believe anything you read against him.

As far as I am concerned, government websites are inherently biased. No surprise there. Mainstream media is nothing but a bunch of apologists for this dubya regime. Newsmax, well, what can I say about newsmax? It's a rightwing based righty skewed crap that one can only laugh at. You, dear puppy, are not capable of determining what is acceptable journalism. What a joke.

Just follow the timelines. and follow the money. It's all pretty clear. Unless of course, you choose to read Newsmax and the like. What a joke.

Having said that, it seems that CNN is now actually lambasting this administration for their failures. It's about time. Of course, rather than believe them, you just accuse them of a lefty bias. What a joke. It's called head-up-your-ass politics.

You find a far left website that says something like that and you believe it

I would be lying if I did not say I dont read right leaning sites.  But when I find something 'scandalous', I always google it and verify it with other sites.  I would no more take the stuff on Freepers as gospel as I would that on Mikey Mooron's site.

As far as I am concerned, government websites are inherently biased. No surprise there. Mainstream media is nothing but a bunch of apologists for this dubya regime. Newsmax, well, what can I say about newsmax? It's a rightwing based righty skewed crap that one can only laugh at. You, dear puppy, are not capable of determining what is acceptable journalism. What a joke.

That may be, but your sites do not even pretend to post facts, just opinion.  If you want to prove a point, you have to at least attempt to get some facts. Posting opinions as facts is stupid.

I am only calling the puppy what he is. An adolescent dog. A puppy. Besides, I still don't even believe you are a woman. Probably a self-loathing adolescent black male.

Yeah, you were what, 8 or 9 years old when it was all over? ~rolls eyes~

do believe you've told us your age, I can't remember it EXACTLY but I DO remember that you and I are very close in age, with just 2 or three years difference. (I think you're a bit younger than I) I was all of 13 when the war ended. So ok, maybe you weren't 8 or 9, you were 10 or 11.

Yeah, Karma, just for starters.

I still tend to believe my own memory when it comes to your age, dabe,(that you are in your 40s, not 50's, unless of course you lied about that in the first place, which is understandable. Many wrinkly old spinsters routinely knock 10 years off their age when asked)but if it's true, I'm sure you were one of the first in line to spit on our returning soldiers, calling them baby killers and rapists.

And this, Karma. Nothing but intentional defamation. Certainly nothing to do with the original topic. Just popped in here to call me a liar. I am not a liar. Do you have my age on file? If so, please tell the whip to bugger off. As long as she posts lies about me, I will post comperable slander about her. But know this - what I post is deliberate mockery, which is transparent and which anyone can see. Her lies are just defamation, as no one can tell that she is actually clueless and knows not of what she speaks.

I am only calling the puppy what he is. An adolescent dog. A puppy. Besides, I still don't even believe you are a woman. Probably a self-loathing adolescent black male.

First, LW is right. Stop with the name calling. YOu will notice I have. Second, she is a woman. I know that much. I dont doubt your gender, stop doubting established members gender. Try those TFs that use to be here (learned that term on a documentary last night!)

Lies, ad hominem attacks, and slander!!!! Oh Karma...oh Karmaaaaaaaa.....

I can see you are hurt. Pulease.

Yeah, Karma, just for starters.

Dabe, she baits you.  Many bait you.  You know it.  Why do you respond?  If you know it, why do you fall for it?

If so, please tell the whip to bugger off. As long as she posts lies about me, I will post comperable slander about her.

You Nuke me, I nuke you.  I think that was called and is called MAD?  I thought you hated MAD?  Is that only when you are not in control of MAD that you hate it?  So you would Nuke someone because they nuked you.  Now what does that make you?