Cindy Sheehan admits having fantasies of going back in time and killing the infant George W Bush

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Face it, whether or not you agree with the reasons for going into Iraq the fault still is with Saddam. If he wasn't such a Chopf##k we would have had no reason to do anything.

But if Bush wasn't such a chopfcuk, we wouldn't be there either.

[Ban Hammer 13,676]

If she really wanted to stop the Iraq war she should go back and kill the baby Saddam. Place the fault where it really should be.

err.. sadam didn't even started this conflict.. do you remember osama? i think, if my memory doesn't fail, he ordered the 9/11 attacks.. so.. shouldn't we kill osama? or did bush brainwashed u to forgot him..

Saddam tortured his own people. There was a good reason to take him out of power.

along with using nerve agent on iraqis

[GaryC 7]

Face it, whether or not you agree with the reasons for going into Iraq the fault still is with Saddam. If he wasn't such a Chopf##k we would have had no reason to do anything.

But if Bush wasn't such a chopfcuk, we wouldn't be there either.

No problem, I can see you give Saddam a break before you would Bush. Showing your colors there. Nice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Face it, whether or not you agree with the reasons for going into Iraq the fault still is with Saddam. If he wasn't such a Chopf##k we would have had no reason to do anything.

But if Bush wasn't such a chopfcuk, we wouldn't be there either.

No problem, I can see you give Saddam a break before you would Bush. Showing your colors there. Nice.

I don't think its about giving Saddam a break at all. We took him out of power simply because it was easy and he had long outlived his usefulness as a power in the region - had little if anything to do with any supposed terrorist links or threat of WMD.

Once upon a time we liked the guy, because he provided a buffer against Iran - which the US had previously tried to control, and which backfired so spectacularly in 1979, ending forever any chance of reasonable dialogue with those people. Do you think at the time that Rumsfeld was pictured shaking hands with Saddam that he, and every other government official didn't know exactly the type of person they were dealing with?

Please. Lets not pretend that the sh*t doesn't stink.

[GaryC 7]

Face it, whether or not you agree with the reasons for going into Iraq the fault still is with Saddam. If he wasn't such a Chopf##k we would have had no reason to do anything.

But if Bush wasn't such a chopfcuk, we wouldn't be there either.

No problem, I can see you give Saddam a break before you would Bush. Showing your colors there. Nice.

I don't think its about giving Saddam a break at all. We took him out of power simply because it was easy and he had long outlived his usefulness as a power in the region - had little if anything to do with any supposed terrorist links or threat of WMD.

Once upon a time we liked the guy, because he provided a buffer against Iran - which the US had previously tried to control, and which backfired so spectacularly in 1979, ending forever any chance of reasonable dialogue with those people. Do you think at the time that Rumsfeld was pictured shaking hands with Saddam that he, and every other government official didn't know exactly the type of person they were dealing with?

Please. Lets not pretend that the sh*t doesn't stink.

So you are saying that since we in the past got him started, not Bush by the way, that we should just let him go and do what he wanted? What kind of twisted logic is that? Just because he was at one time our puppet does not forgive the sh!t he did after. When we were friendly with him he wasn't gassing his own people, murdering entire towns because a few in that town tried to take him out, invading a neighbor and claiming it for his own and trying to develope nuclear weapons. He went right off the deep end and became a threat. Maybe not directly but if he were allowed to go unchecked he would have eventually developed other WMD's and sold them to people that were a direct threat to us. Just because he was at one time our friend doesn't mean that things can't change. The man was a evil dictator. Bush didn't put him in power, previous administations did. If you want to fault them for that the go right ahead. But the real reason for Iraq was Saddam not Bush.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you are saying that since we in the past got him started, not Bush by the way, that we should just let him go and do what he wanted? What kind of twisted logic is that? Just because he was at one time our puppet does not forgive the sh!t he did after. When we were friendly with him he wasn't gassing his own people, murdering entire towns because a few in that town tried to take him out, invading a neighbor and claiming it for his own and trying to develope nuclear weapons. He went right off the deep end and became a threat. Maybe not directly but if he were allowed to go unchecked he would have eventually developed other WMD's and sold them to people that were a direct threat to us. Just because he was at one time our friend doesn't mean that things can't change. The man was a evil dictator. Bush didn't put him in power, previous administations did. If you want to fault them for that the go right ahead. But the real reason for Iraq was Saddam not Bush.

Actually we supported Iraq during the Iran Iraq war - when he was gassing people. In fact, the US and Europe were not only funding him secretly but selling him many of the weapons (including the chemical agents) that he was using against his neighbour. Why exactly is Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in that well documented meeting... any guesses?

The reason we supported Saddam is the exact same reason we orchestrated the removal of Iran's president - because its easier (and cheaper) to establish a certain kind of relationship with a dictator than it is with a representative government. Why pay a fair price for your oil (which is obviously part of it), when you can massage his ego and pay him off with foreign luxury cars and a gold plated comode. But here's the rub - a dictator will do certain favors for you that a representative government would most likely not only find reprehensible, but would be loath to do.

Similarly the reason we abandoned Saddam after he invaded Kuwait is simply because the guy stupidly over-estimated our support to him and his usefulness to us. His invasion of Kuwait directly jeopardised the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. They had to cut one diplomatic tie - and it ended up being the one that was less commercially and politically valuable.

Still Bush framed his justification of this entire conflict (at least initially) in terms of a direct and present threat to national security - if there was such a clear threat, why was it necessary to go around the houses making salacious, exaggerated or falsified claims to justify the policy?

Edited September 8, 2006 by erekose

[Heracles 417]

The right-wingers who think nothing but the worst of Cindy Sheehan .... she has fantasized about going back in time and killing the infant George W. Bush, thereby preventing the Iraq War.

That lady seriously isn't right..

[GaryC 7]

Actually we supported Iraq during the Iran Iraq war - when he was gassing people. In fact, the US and Europe were not only funding him secretly but selling him many of the weapons (including the chemical agents) that he was using against his neighbour. Why exactly is Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in that well documented meeting... any guesses?

The reason we supported Saddam is the exact same reason we orchestrated the removal of Iran's president - because its easier (and cheaper) to establish a certain kind of relationship with a dictator than it is with a representative government. Why pay a fair price for your oil (which is obviously part of it), when you can massage his ego and pay him off with foreign luxury cars and a gold plated comode. But here's the rub - a dictator will do certain favors for you that a representative government would most likely not only find reprehensible, but would be loath to do.

Similarly the reason we abandoned Saddam after he invaded Kuwait is simply because the guy stupidly over-estimated our support to him and his usefulness to us. His invasion of Kuwait directly jeopardised the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. They had to cut one diplomatic tie - and it ended up being the one that was less commercially and politically valuable.

Still Bush framed his justification of this entire conflict (at least initially) in terms of a direct and present threat to national security - if there was such a clear threat, why was it necessary to go around the houses making salacious, exaggerated or falsified claims to justify the policy?

So your still saying that because at one time we supported him we shouldn't later take him out when he went off the deep end?

Let me see if I can frame my position with an analogy.

Say the FBI has a crime family they want to bust. But they can't get any evidence on them. So they go to a prison and find a thug that is willing to infiltrate the crime family in exchange for forgiving his past crimes. So the FBI gets him out of jail, bankrolls him and gives him all the information that he needs to get in with the crime family. For a while the thug does what the FBI wanted. But after a while the thug realizes that he has power and money and no longer sees a need to help the FBI any further. The thug goes on to become exactly what the FBI was fighting in the first place. So by your reasoning since the FBI made this guy what he was then they have no moral right to go in and take him out? They should just let him go and do what he wants since they set him up in the first place?

[sunandmoon 450]

The right-wingers who think nothing but the worst of Cindy Sheehan probably won't change their minds after reading Peace Mom. In the book, which hits bookstores September 19, the antiwar icon admits she has fantasized about going back in time and killing the infant George W. Bush, thereby preventing the Iraq War.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006...ngerous-mom.php

hmmm. if her fantasy is along the lines of being able to save innocent lives, how bout she go back in time and kill the infant Hitler.

[type2negative 0]

Just Want to draw your attention Gary, That in some other thread your wife Posted me a picture of a big black cat, That gives me a finger!!!. The picture is animated and flips me off every 20-30 seconds. If I look on it of course. Its even more disterssing , since facial expression of cat doesnt change as it does so. Its up to yo what to do.

[tmma 467]

Just Want to draw your attention Gary, That in some other thread your wife Posted me a picture of a big black cat, That gives me a finger!!!. The picture is animated and flips me off every 20-30 seconds. If I look on it of course. Its even more disterssing , since facial expression of cat doesnt change as it does so. Its up to yo what to do.

LOL-Which thread?

[GaryC 7]

Actually we supported Iraq during the Iran Iraq war - when he was gassing people. In fact, the US and Europe were not only funding him secretly but selling him many of the weapons (including the chemical agents) that he was using against his neighbour. Why exactly is Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in that well documented meeting... any guesses?

The reason we supported Saddam is the exact same reason we orchestrated the removal of Iran's president - because its easier (and cheaper) to establish a certain kind of relationship with a dictator than it is with a representative government. Why pay a fair price for your oil (which is obviously part of it), when you can massage his ego and pay him off with foreign luxury cars and a gold plated comode. But here's the rub - a dictator will do certain favors for you that a representative government would most likely not only find reprehensible, but would be loath to do.

Similarly the reason we abandoned Saddam after he invaded Kuwait is simply because the guy stupidly over-estimated our support to him and his usefulness to us. His invasion of Kuwait directly jeopardised the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. They had to cut one diplomatic tie - and it ended up being the one that was less commercially and politically valuable.

Still Bush framed his justification of this entire conflict (at least initially) in terms of a direct and present threat to national security - if there was such a clear threat, why was it necessary to go around the houses making salacious, exaggerated or falsified claims to justify the policy?

Hmmm. I just read something interesting. Seems Wilson was lying his a$$ off. Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake.

Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6040800895.html

Edited September 8, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So your still saying that because at one time we supported him we shouldn't later take him out when he went off the deep end?

Let me see if I can frame my position with an analogy.

Say the FBI has a crime family they want to bust. But they can't get any evidence on them. So they go to a prison and find a thug that is willing to infiltrate the crime family in exchange for forgiving his past crimes. So the FBI gets him out of jail, bankrolls him and gives him all the information that he needs to get in with the crime family. For a while the thug does what the FBI wanted. But after a while the thug realizes that he has power and money and no longer sees a need to help the FBI any further. The thug goes on to become exactly what the FBI was fighting in the first place. So by your reasoning since the FBI made this guy what he was then they have no moral right to go in and take him out? They should just let him go and do what he wants since they set him up in the first place?

No - just that the decision to take out Saddam Hussein was ultimately self-motivated, not because of any direct threat he posed to us or any other country, but because it was convenient and relatively easy to do so - the exact reason why we aren't embroiled in a 'ground war' with Iran or Syria. We always knew what sort of guy this was, and what he was capable of - so it's questionable to suggest that the US suddenly had an attack of "moral guilt" and decided to take him out because GWB et al suddenly decided he was "evil"

In any case, how did Saddam suddenly "go off the deep end?". Its the same guy - we've known for years what he was doing, what he was guilty of. He's one of many repressive arseholes in the world, not to mention one of the oppressive arseholes who the US and others was perfectly happy to ally itself with. It's not like things have changed all that much - we still ally ourselves with other repressive governments all over the world, so its not as though things have changed all that much...!?

Hmmm. I just read something interesting. Seems Wilson was lying his a$$ off. Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake.

Nice try, but Wilson wasn't the sole author of the claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery

[GaryC 7]

No - just that the decision to take out Saddam Hussein was ultimately self-motivated, not because of any direct threat he posed to us or any other country, but because it was convenient and relatively easy to do so - the exact reason why we aren't embroiled in a 'ground war' with Iran or Syria. We always knew what sort of guy this was, and what he was capable of - so it's questionable to suggest that the US suddenly had an attack of "moral guilt" and decided to take him out because GWB et al suddenly decided he was "evil"

In any case, how did Saddam suddenly "go off the deep end?". Its the same guy - we've known for years what he was doing, what he was guilty of. He's one of many repressive arseholes in the world, not to mention one of the oppressive arseholes who the US and others was perfectly happy to ally itself with. It's not like things have changed all that much - we still ally ourselves with other repressive governments all over the world, so its not as though things have changed all that much...!?

Hmmm. I just read something interesting. Seems Wilson was lying his a$$ off. Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake.

Nice try, but Wilson wasn't the sole author of the claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery

I would hardly say Iraq has been convenient or easy as you keep saying. And Bush said from the begining that it was going to be a hard long road.

I wouldn't believe much in wikipedia. It's nothing more than a blog that people are free to edit as they want. This whole Plame/Wilson media frenzy was started with Wilson. Since he is now discredited so is the whole affair.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Face it, whether or not you agree with the reasons for going into Iraq the fault still is with Saddam. If he wasn't such a Chopf##k we would have had no reason to do anything.

But if Bush wasn't such a chopfcuk, we wouldn't be there either.

No problem, I can see you give Saddam a break before you would Bush. Showing your colors there. Nice.

Where have I given Saddam a break before Bush? Saddam is a fcuking tyrant. An #######. I never said anything different. All I'm saying at the same time, though, is that Bush ain't much better. Bush complained about Saddam dissing the UN and then he dissed the UN himself, lied to the American (and world) public so he can illegally attack Iraq. Bush ain't no damn saint and he is in absolutely no position to be pointing fingers at anybody. He is a dangerous and lying crook. That's all he is.