destruction
-
Posts
925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by destruction
-
-
I know you want to talk to President Bush about the conflict in Iraq, the war in which your son, Specialist Casey Sheehan, was tragically killed. I also know that while the President met with you previously, he is not eager to see you again – not now that you are affiliated with Moveon.org and supported by David Duke and handled by slick public relations professionals.
This is the reason why I have nothing to do with moveon.org and I also believe that Cindy Sheehan should not align herself with them either. David Duke was a bad seed for the Republicans. Her alignment with an organization who is supported by someone who is a former KKK imperial wizard is like you aligning yourself with Fred Phelps. The same Fred Phelps who owns godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev._Fred_Phelps
Other than that, many good points were made in the rest of that letter too.
Cindy needs to choose her peace organizations more wisely.
-
Iraq on brink of meltdown
By Oliver Poole in Baghdad
(Filed: 26/08/2005)
The credibility of Iraq's political process was in danger last night as parliament again failed to vote on a draft constitution which a Sunni politician said was "fit only for the bin".
The government had earlier announced plans to bypass parliament in an attempt to push through the document.
But as the final hours ran out before the deadline for approving the constitution, Hajim al-Hassani, the speaker of the parliament, appeared to overrule the country's leaders by insisting that negotiations would continue today, meaning that the deadline would be missed for the third time.
The impression of growing crisis in Iraq was reinforced when a new front erupted in the violent rebellion, with Shia Muslims fighting each other with guns and rocket-propelled grenades.
Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the prime minister, made an emergency television appeal for peace and sent two police commando units to Najaf where the fighting had started.
Throughout the day in Baghdad, politicians bickered over how to proceed with the constitution without driving the country to civil war.
As night fell, the government's official spokesman, Laith Kubba, announced that a final version of the document had been decided and compromise reached on three issues, although he did not say which. Sunni leaders said that no consensus had been reached.
Hussein al-Falluji, a Sunni member of the drafting panel, said: "If this constitution continues to include federalism, it should be put in the bin and done again."
The chances of the parliament convening declined by the minute. Kamal Hamdoun, a Sunni negotiator, said the Shia politicians - the dominant force in the national assembly - had not turned up for a meeting.
"They are acting according to the law of force instead of the force of law. We call on all Iraqis to vote No in the constitutional referendum."
Shia politicians made clear that they did not see any need for the parliament to vote. The draft is to be put to a referendum in October.
The drafting began amid the optimism engendered by January's successful elections, when Iraqis turned out to vote in defiance of bombers and gunmen. But US hopes of establishing the first secular democracy in the Arab world have foundered on ethnic and religious divisions.
Gunmen opened fire yesterday on a convoy of cars used by the president but Jalal Talabani was not in it. Four bodyguards were wounded.
In what appeared to be an attempt to inflame sectarian tensions, the bodies of 37 Shia soldiers, killed with a single bullet to the head, were found in a shallow river south of Baghdad, the latest of several such grim discoveries. Police said they had been stripped to their underwear.
The minority Sunnis, who were the masters under Saddam Hussein, are implacably opposed to the federal nature of the constitution. They fear that it will place oil wealth in the hands of the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south.
The constitutional vacuum drew in another opponent of federalism, the firebrand Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who was responsible for two uprisings in the south last summer but who has since been quiet.
At least 12 people were killed as his Mahdi Army militia clashed with members of the Iranian-linked Badr Brigade in six cities and a Baghdad suburb. Sadr has now formed common cause with the Sunnis, fearing that federalism will play into the hands of Iran.
The Badr Brigade is the armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which dominated the elections. It wants the southern states to become a semi-autonomous region with partial control over its revenues and security.
The speed of the violence underlined that even a "defeated" militia such as Sadr's still has a formidable arsenal and that the security forces are nowhere to be seen when the fighting starts.
Armed clashes broke out in British-controlled Basra before dawn but later subsided. In Amarah, where British troops are also stationed, Sadr supporters were reported to have killed five people when they mortared Badr Brigade headquarters.
-
Crawford Protests Strike Chord
The encampment outside Bush’s ranch vacation unleashed a furor. Cindy Sheehan stood outside and demanded that Bush explain to her what "noble cause" had got her son killed in Iraq. It all got onto prime time news--and struck a nerve. People have been choosing sides. Support vigils have been held in over 1,400 places. And the response also showed cracks in the war morale of military families, and in the military itself. All this shows two things:
First, millions of people believe this war was launched on lies and that the U.S. should get out of Iraq. Millions think this is not a war worth dying or killing for. And many thousands are ready, right now, to act on that conviction. These many thousands need to be given an outlet that can actually satisfy that profound desire.
Second, the mounting problems for the U.S. in Iraq are intensifying divisions within the ruling class.
This war was a high-stakes gamble for the U.S. government from the beginning. And now, two years later, they have still not stabilized their control over Iraq and the larger region. They are stretched thin and isolated, facing a growing insurgency and seemingly unable to bring together Iraqi forces to run the country for them. There is a real danger that this could all turn into a major strategic setback for them.
The U.S. imperialists are not about to pull out of Iraq and abandon their grip on this highly strategic spot. The consensus within the ruling class remains that this war has to be won, in some form. But while Bush insists everything is going well--that is being challenged from right within the ruling class.
And this is shown by the very fact that some of the forces controlling the mainstream mass media obviously decided to bring Cindy Sheehan into every living room, night after night. What a change, from the same mass media that has so crudely censored antiwar sentiment from the national news.
But these ruling class critiques of Bush’s war leadership are coming from fundamentally different interests than the millions of people who want an end to this war.
Just look at what former Senator Max Cleland said, in the official Democratic Party reply to Bush’s radio address: "The Bush administration’s plan for victory is not working... Iraq is still not secure and we don’t have the forces to make it secure…It’s time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out." And while Cleland may hold out the promise of withdrawal, his emphasis is clearly on a "strategy to win."
Is that what the people of the world need? A more effective U.S. counterinsurgency in Iraq? A Hillary Clinton approach of sending more U.S. troops in to conquer Iraq?! Some more skillful or persuasive American commander-in-chief?
No, the world needs an end to U.S. war, empire, threat and torture!
There is a danger that all this antiwar sentiment may, once again, be herded into those well-worn ruts of politics-as-usual. And you can see that danger sharply in the endless repetition of "Support the Troops."
First off: Isn’t the real injustice here the killing and torture of Iraq’s people? The only U.S. troops who should be supported are the ones who refuse to fight and resist their unjust orders.
Beyond that, if this moment is made all about supporting the troops, then all too quickly the slogan "Support the troops, end the war" gives way to "Support the troops, send reinforcements…and send more armor, find more allies, and don’t undermine their fighting morale!" This narrow poisonous logic around "the troops" too easily brings people back to supporting the war, the system, and all the misery that represents. And this simply can’t be allowed to go down!
All this bitter infighting within the ruling class creates cracks and crisis--it can shake many more people awake, and draw them into political life. And it helps create the possibility for many more people breaking away from a logic and class interests represented by all that official imperialist politics-as-usual. To do that requires a bold initiative -- dramatic mass action that refuses to settle for anything less than the repudiation of the whole course of action represented by the Bush regime, including this outrageous criminal war in Iraq. And such action is represented by the November 2 call on the facing page.
If we are really going to liberate people --a radically different and revolutionary political direction has to be fought for, to end the capitalism and empire that give rise to this whole endless offensive of war and torture.
-
Pat Robertson's Gift
Thursday, August 25, 2005; Page A18
WE WON'T even pretend to have given television evangelist Pat Robertson's latest obnoxious utterance much thought, considering his long history of pious bloviations that have made him come across to most Americans as, well, witless. Were it not for the widespread attention being given in Latin America to Mr. Robertson's call on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, we would have preferred to allow the Christian Coalition's founder to continue his slide from America's mainstream into the obscurity he has so richly earned. But his latest bit of foolery is worth a comment or two -- if for no other reason than Mr. Robertson, in an act of stupidity only he could outdo, has handed Fidel Castro's acolyte a propaganda gift of immeasurable value.
Mr. Chavez, who, like Mr. Robertson, is infatuated with the absurd, fancies that the United States is out to kill him. It so happens that Mr. Chavez, when not meddling in the affairs of his neighbors and spawning anti-democratic movements, seems to enjoy portraying himself as a target of U.S. assassins -- a charge that he makes without evidence and that has been strongly denied by the Bush administration.
Enter Mr. Robertson. It's a pity Venezuelans don't know that "The 700 Club" broadcaster is a fading shadow of the Republican Party figure he once was. That Mr. Robertson once ran for his party's nomination, built a conservative religious advocacy group that had aspiring office-seekers quaking in their boots and -- entrepreneur that he is -- befriended every sub-Saharan kleptomaniac he managed to meet.
But Mr. Robertson's slide from the mountain peak of evangelical pontification was not because of his politics but because of his mouth. When his words were not ill-advised, they were moronic; when not callow, downright loopy, as in: predicting God would curse Orlando with a hurricane if gay-pride events were celebrated at Disney World; wishing a nuclear bomb would be dropped on the State Department; and suggesting that America had it coming on Sept. 11 because God had been insulted "at the highest level of our government." Venezuelans just may not know the Pat Robertson that America knows. Yesterday, Mr. Robertson apologized. We are used to that, too.
Still, it is curious how some of Mr. Robertson's fellow travelers have not been able to locate their tongues over this latest Robertson-inspired international disturbance. The Family Research Council and Traditional Values Coalition spare no moments in rushing forth to denounce irresponsibility on the part of those they dislike. Not so with Mr. Robertson, who only called for the United States to murder a foreign head of state. Even the Bush administration can't bring itself to censure a fellow conservative who publicly calls for his country to break the law. "Inappropriate," the State Department managed to say. The White House, embarrassed by Mr. Robertson yet again but too afraid to mix it up with his narrow but loyal base of support, simply averts its gaze. For all that, Mr. Chavez owes Mr. Robertson a thank-you note.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082401899.html
-
Sheehan returns to Crawford
Dead soldier's mom resumes anti-war vigil
Thursday, August 25, 2005; Posted: 1:07 a.m. EDT (05:07 GMT)
CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- The California woman at the center of anti-war protests outside President Bush's ranch returned to Texas to cheers -- and a few boos -- Wednesday after nearly a week away to tend her ailing mother.
About 40 supporters, and a couple of Bush supporters, greeted Sheehan's return to "Camp Casey," outside Bush's property. The protest site, made up of two campsites, is named after her 24-year-old son, an Army mechanic killed in Baghdad last year.
While she was away, Sheehan's supporters erected a 10-by-10-foot banner with the dates of her son's birth and death and the words: "In loving memory of Army Specialist Casey A. Sheehan."
Sheehan broke down in tears upon seeing it, prompting first aid treatment by medical personnel.
The campsites are lined with crosses bearing the names of American troops killed in Iraq, and Sheehan laid flowers and kissed the markers bearing her son's name.
Since Sheehan left the camp last week when her mother suffered a stroke, Bush has also left his ranch to give two speeches reinforcing why the administration believes it would be wrong to pull out of Iraq at the moment. (Full story)
Bush returned to the ranch late Wednesday.
Accompanying Sheehan were Melanie and Susan House, the widow and mother of John House, a Navy hospital corpsman killed in a January helicopter crash in Iraq. Melanie House had been in Idaho to protest during Bush's visit there and said she wanted him to explain "what's the reason for this war."
Bush met once with Sheehan and other relatives of troops killed in Iraq during an appearance at Fort Lewis, Washington, last year. He has so far refused to meet with her a second time and said during his Idaho visit Tuesday that her stance on troop withdrawal from Iraq "would weaken the United States."
"She expressed her opinion; I disagree with it," Bush said. "I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake."
The 48-year-old began her vigil outside the president's property August 6 in hopes of questioning him about the reasons for the U.S. invasion and to urge an American withdrawal.
CNN's Ed Lavandera and Eric Fiegel contributed to this report.
-
If the medical authorities catch you, soceity wins
When you kill yourself, America wins.
-
John Kerry is part of the illuminati along with Bush. Both were in the skull and bones. Neither one are good.
-
If you ignore me, I win.
-
Aug. 23, 2005, 11:32PM
Pat Robertson ignites war of words
Venezuela calls assassination talk another sign Bush wants Chavez out
By JOHN OTIS and MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
Pat Robertson's suggestion that American agents should kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez aggravated tense relations between the two countries even as the Bush administration moved Tuesday to distance itself from the televangelist's comments.
In Caracas, Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Robertson's words were another sign that the Bush administration is out to get Chavez, a leftist who is wildly popular at home and is an outspoken critic of the U.S. government.
"Before, they were openly calling for Chavez's overthrow. Now, the call is to assassinate him," Rangel said.
The State Department on Tuesday denounced the remarks by Robertson, founder of the conservative Christian Coalition of America and a supporter of President Bush.
"Any allegations that we are planning to take hostile action against the Venezuelan government are completely baseless and without fact," said spokesman Sean McCormack. "Pat Robertson is a private citizen, and his views do not represent the policy of the United States."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld added that the U.S. military had never considered killing Chavez "to my knowledge, and I think I would have knowledge."
During Monday's broadcast of Robertson's show, The 700 Club , on the Christian Broadcasting Network, the 75-year-old host painted Chavez as a menace intent on spreading communism throughout the hemisphere.
Rather than waging a war, Robertson said, it would be cheaper and easier to assassinate the Venezuelan leader.
"I don't know about this doctrine of assassination. But if (Chavez) thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said.
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job," he said.
Robertson has made incendiary comments before. In 2003, he suggested that the State Department ought to be blown up with a nuclear device.
Still, many Latin Americans take him seriously. The 700 Club is dubbed in Spanish and broadcast around the region. Robertson ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, and his 2 million-member Christian Coalition helped get President Bush elected in 2000 and re-elected last year.
"Mr. Robertson is no ordinary citizen," said Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's ambassador to the United States. He "has been one of the president's staunchest allies."
As a result, Robertson is viewed in Latin America as having some degree of support within the Bush White House, said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington and a Chavez critic.
"The way Robertson's declarations will play in Latin America is that Chavez is right and that the U.S. is out to get him," Shifter said.
Since he was elected in 1998, Chavez has pledged to carry out a leftist revolution on behalf of the poor and has denounced U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, Iraq and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Chavez has used his country's vast oil wealth as a counterweight to U.S. influence in Latin America. He has forged close ties to communist Cuba.
Bush administration officials claim that Chavez backs "undemocratic" radical movements in Bolivia and have hinted that he may have ties to Marxist guerrillas in Colombia.
In 2002, U.S. officials crowed when Chavez was briefly ousted in a coup. After Chavez returned to power, the U.S. government channeled millions of dollars to opposition political groups in Venezuela.
As he boarded a flight from Cuba to Jamaica on Tuesday afternoon, Chavez said he had no knowledge of the Robertson controversy.
"I don't even know who that person is," he said.
-
August 22, 2005
George W. Bush's Job Approval Ratings Drop
George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 38% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove, and 36% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 60% disapprove.
This is the second month in a row when improving economic ratings have not been matched by higher job approval ratings for Bush. A total of 24% of Americans now say their personal financial situations are getting better, up from 17% in July, and 27% say they believe that their personal financial situations will be better off a year from now, which is up from 21% in July.
The increases in the personal financial ratings, however, are coming mainly from those approving of the way Bush is handling his job. A total of 54% of those approving the way Bush is handling his job say their personal financial situations are getting better, compared to 5% of those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, and 61% of those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job say they expect to be better off a year from now, compared to 6% of those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job.
The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed August 18 through 21, 2005. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
Overall, 36% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 58% disapprove, and 6% are undecided.
Among Republicans (35% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 77% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 18% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 15% approve and 81% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 21% approve and 72% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.
Overall, 33% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy, 62% disapprove, and 5% are undecided. Among registered voters, 36% approve and 60% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy.
Among Republicans, 73% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 25% disapprove. Among Democrats, 83% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy and 14% approve. Among Independents, 19% approve and 74% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy.
A total of 29% of Americans say that the national economy is getting better, 17% say it is staying the same, and 53% say the national economy is getting worse.
Among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 71% say getting better, 14% say staying the same, and 14% say getting worse. Of those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, 777% say getting worse, 3% say getting better, and 19% say staying the same.
A total of 31% of Americans say they believe the national economy will be better a year from now, 23% say it will be the same, 44% say it will be worse, and 2% are undecided.
Among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 73% say better and 16% say they same as today. Among those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president, 3% say better, 23% say the same, and 72% say worse.
Overall, 29% of Americans say they believe that the national economy is in a recession and 50% say they do not believe the economy is in a recession.
Among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 6% say the national economy is in a recession and 91% say is it not in a recession. Of those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, 47% say the national economy is in a recession, 20% say the national economy is not in a recession, and 33% are undecided.
A total of 42% of Americans rate the national economy as excellent, very good, or good and 55% rate it as bad, very bad, or terrible.
Among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 85% say excellent, very good, or good and 14% say bad, very bad, or terrible. Among those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, 82% say bad, very bad, or terrible and 15% say excellent, very good, or good.
When it comes to rating their household financial situations, 64% of Americans give an excellent, very good, or good rating and 35% give a bad, very bad, or terrible rating.
Among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 87% say excellent, very good, or good and 12% say bad, very bad, or terrible. Among those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, 49% say bad, very bad, or terrible and 50% say excellent, very good, or good.
A total of 24% of Americans say they think the financial situations in their households are getting better, 41% say staying the same, and 33% say getting worse.
Among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 54% say getting better and 34% say staying the same. Among those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, 5% say getting better, 46% say staying the same, 47% say getting worse.
Looking to a year from now, 27% of Americans say that they think their household financial situations will be better than today, 41% say the same as today, and 27% say worse than today.
Among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 61% say better than today and 37% say the same as today, and 2% say worse than today. Among those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, 6% say better than today, 44% say the same as today, and 44% say worse than today.
About this Survey -
Survey Sponsor: American Research Group, Inc.
The American Research Group has been conducting national surveys of consumers since 1985.
Sample Size: 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of all adults age 18 and older living in telephone households in the continental United States.
Sample Dates: August 18-21, 2005
Margin of Error: ± 3 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
Question Wording:
How do you rate the condition of the national economy these days - would you say it is excellent, very good, good, bad, very bad, or terrible?
Do you think the national economy is getting better, staying the same, or getting worse?
Would you say that the national economy is in a recession, or not?
A year from now, do you expect the national economy to be better than it is today, the same as it is today, or worse than it is today?
How do you rate the condition of the financial situation in your household - would you say it is excellent, very good, good, bad, very bad, or terrible?
Do you think the financial situation in your household is getting better, staying the same, or getting worse?
A year from now, do you expect the financial situation in your household to be better than it is today, the same as it is today, or worse than it is today?
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy?
-
exactly ...or like redsox fan complaining about the yankees having the highest payroll when they have the 2nd highest payroll
The Red Sox jacked up their payroll once again for next season. Bx. What is this I hear about the Yankees wanting to build a new stadium?
-
Still growing: U.S. obesity rates increase
The rate of obesity continues to climb in Florida and around the country, a new health report found.
By JACOB GOLDSTEIN
More than one in five Floridians is obese, yet Florida remains slimmer than all but 12 other states, according to a report released Tuesday.
Obesity rates increased in every state except Oregon, which held steady.
''We have a crisis in poor nutrition and physical activity in this country,'' said Shelley Hearne, executive director of Trust for America's Health, the nonprofit group that released the report.
``It's simple math out there -- we're eating more and exercising less, and it's time that we deal with it in a much more systematic and realistic way.''
The report, based on data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found:
• Florida's adult obesity rate was 20.7 percent during 2002-2004. During the previous cycle measured by the report, 2001-2003, the statewide rate was 19.3 percent.
• During the same period, the national rate climbed from 22 percent to 22.7 percent.
• Among the 10 states with the highest percentage of obese adults, seven were in the Southeast -- Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina. More than a quarter of adults in those states are obese.
• Mississippi's 28.1 percent obesity rate was the nation's highest; Colorado's rate, 16.4 percent, was lowest.
• Roughly 119 million adult Americans, or 64.5 percent of the population, are overweight or obese.
HEALTH PROBLEMS
Obesity is linked to a variety of health problems, including diabetes, heart attack and strokes, and adds billions of dollars a year to healthcare spending, experts say.
The report called for a broad spectrum of responses, such as healthier school lunches, subsidized gym memberships for Medicare recipients and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.
''As we build cul-de-sac-type subdivisions, people can no longer just walk to school, walk to church, walk to work,'' said former Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening, one of the report's authors. ``They can't walk anyplace, so they have to get in the car and drive someplace.''
NO GOVERNMENT
Radley Balko, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, was skeptical of the report's call for public action.
''What you eat and how much you exercise are very private matters,'' he said. ``If government starts getting into the business of trying to regulate our pants size, I can't think of anything left that wouldn't be in the government's purview.''
In recent years, as the public health community's outcry over obesity rates has grown louder, federal, state and local governments have tried to address the issue.
ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE
Miami-Dade and Broward public schools are revamping lunch menus to make them healthier. State and county health officials have conducted obesity summits.
Yet rates have continued to rise.
''It's a toxic food environment,'' said Sheah Rarback, a registered dietitian at the University of Miami. ``Every gas station sells food. Every place we go, we're stimulated to eat. It's very hard to escape this constant stimulation for these quick grab-and-go foods, which are usually high calorie, low nutrition.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/health/12458583.htm
-
Why the 'Chickenhawk' argument is un-American: Part I
Ben Shapiro (archive)
August 17, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend
Who is qualified to speak on matters of national security? According to the American left, only pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. The rest of us -- about 80 percent of voters -- must simply sit by silently. Our opinions do not matter. You want disenfranchisement? Talk to the political left, which seeks to exclude the vast majority of the American populace from the national debate about foreign policy.
The bulk of the left in this country refuses to argue about foreign policy rationally, without resorting to ad hominem attack. The favored ad hominem attack of the left these days is "chickenhawk." The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up. If, on the other hand, you believe that America should disengage from all foreign wars, you may feel free not to serve in the military.
This is the argument made by hate-America radicals like Michael Moore, who defines "chickenhawk" on his website thus: "A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth." The "chickenhawk" argument was the implicit centerpiece of John Kerry's presidential campaign -- Kerry hyped his military service and denigrated George W. Bush's military service, all the while focusing on the fact that he, unlike President Bush, was anti-war. Kerry's campaign underling, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, made the argument explicit during April 2004: "They shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of the chicken," he said of the Bush Administration. "The lead chickenhawk against Sen. Kerry [is] the vice president of the United States, Vice President Cheney." Not coincidentally, Lautenberg utilized Moore's exact "chickenhawk" definition in making his point.
The "chickenhawk" argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues. We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don't pay taxes. The list goes on and on. Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.
The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.
The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner. They must resort to purely emotional, base personal attacks in order to forward their agenda. And so, unable or unwilling to counter the arguments of those like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and President Bush, they label them all "chickenhawks." By the leftist logic, here are some other "chickenhawks": John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.
American soldiers fight for the right of all Americans, regardless of race, class or past service, to speak out on foreign policy issues. If they fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.
Chickenhawk in Whine Sauce
Young Ben Shapiro, fondly known to some as America’s Worst Law Student™, has had it, had it, just had it with being called a chickenhawk. So Ben whipped up a new column — “In Praise of Chickenhawkery: Part I†— to defend himself:
The favored ad hominem attack of the left these days is “chickenhawk.†The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up.Of course, nobody is telling Ben to shut up — least of all people like me who devote a weblog to ridiculing what people like Ben say. We’re just calling Ben a hypocrite. It’s Ben who’s telling people who are calling him a chickenhawk to shut up:
The “chickenhawk†argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal). . . .Um, unless of course we’re talking about legal homosexual behavior which Ben thinks is all icky:
The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal amorality devolving into societal immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: “How does my immoral behavior hurt you?†The answer is: It may not, in the short term. But when society sanctions your immoral behavior, that does hurt me.Ben now pulls out what he thinks are his big guns, so to speak:
The “chickenhawk†argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself.Go get ‘em, Tiger! Argue that calling you a hypocrite is unconstitutional!! (Now you know why we like to call Ben America’s Worst Law Student™.)
Ben, of course, saves his best argument for last:
By the leftist logic, here are some other “chickenhawksâ€: John Adams [and] Benjamin Franklin . . . .At the time of the Revolutionary War, Adams and Franklin were, respectively 41 and 70, both a bit long in the tooth to be expected to enlist in the army. Ben, however, is 21. I don’t think its unfair to say that Ben may also be America’s Worst History Student.
I don’t know about you, but I just can’t wait for “In Praise of Chickenhawkery, Pt. II.â€
-
August 22, 2005
George W. Bush's Job Approval Ratings Drop
George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 38% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove, and 36% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 60% disapprove.
This is the second month in a row when improving economic ratings have not been matched by higher job approval ratings for Bush. A total of 24% of Americans now say their personal financial situations are getting better, up from 17% in July, and 27% say they believe that their personal financial situations will be better off a year from now, which is up from 21% in July.
The increases in the personal financial ratings, however, are coming mainly from those approving of the way Bush is handling his job. A total of 54% of those approving the way Bush is handling his job say their personal financial situations are getting better, compared to 5% of those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, and 61% of those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job say they expect to be better off a year from now, compared to 6% of those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job.
The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed August 18 through 21, 2005. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
Overall, 36% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 58% disapprove, and 6% are undecided.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
-
All kidding aside, the kid is mentally disturbed, and an obvious social misfit.....so he clings to these pathetic reaches in an effort to look smart, or give his pathetic existence some false sense of meaning......
He is the typical simpleton who thinks he is the the "in" club to be anti-Bush, yet doesn't have a clue what he talking about....he can only regurgitate the moveon.org talkig points sent by sheep phone to him....
The problem with useful idiots like destruction is their noise drowns out those who debate with legitimate merit, and offer honest and true dissent....jerkoffs liek destruction never had a good, or even just an alternative idea.....they just blab jibberish to mask their mental deficiencies....history has always shown that these blowhards are nothing more than insignificant noise....
Translation:Harassing homeless people for fun is a good thing. It's the American way.Case closed.Translation:
Hi. I'm igloo. Can I be your friend?Ok.
-
Bush Supporters, Activists Clash in Calif.
Tuesday August 23, 2005 7:46 PM
AP Photo TXLM101
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Supporters of President Bush clashed with anti-war activists as they wound their way through California after rallying in the hometown of Cindy Sheehan, the mother who started a protest camp outside Bush's Texas ranch.
Conservative activists and military families embarked on the tour Monday, calling it ``You don't speak for me, Cindy!'' A verbal confrontation erupted when the caravan arrived in Sacramento and was met by anti-war protesters chanting for Bush to bring home the troops.
Sheehan supporter Dan Elliott, 71, confronted caravan members by waving a sign reading ``Death is not support'' and heckling one of the tour's organizers as she addressed the crowd.
``You are ruining the morale over there,'' responded Greg Parkinson, a Bush supporter.
Sheehan began her protest vigil Aug. 6 on the road leading to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, an act that has encouraged anti-war activists to join her and prompted peace vigils nationwide. Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed last year in Iraq.
The pro-Bush caravan planned rallies in several California cities before heading to Crawford, where Sheehan opponents have formed their own camp.
``It's time to lay down the anger. We need to continue to uphold those people over there, to uphold those men and women with their boots on the ground,'' said Deborah Johns of the Northern California Marine Moms, who helped organize the caravan and addressed supporters outside the Vacaville Reporter newspaper in Sheehan's hometown.
Some caravan members called the anti-war protesters communists and said they were ``aiding and abetting the enemy.'' Those comments enraged Sheehan supporter Dee Ann Heath, who said she has two sons serving in Iraq and another preparing to leave.
``I don't support the war, but I support my sons,'' she said. ``I simply want them to come home.''
In Vacaville, Toni Colip, 50, said her son, David, went to high school with Casey Sheehan and is now in the Army, although not in Iraq. Colip said her son opposes Cindy Sheehan's activities and has asked her to support his military service even if he is injured or killed.
``He said, 'Don't dishonor me; don't walk on my grave,''' Colip said.
Sheehan vowed to remain in Texas until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended Sept. 3, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke. She is expected to return to Texas in a few days.
On Monday, Bush was in Salt Lake City, where he spoke to a national veterans group to rally support for the war. Bush has said he sympathizes with Sheehan, but a White House spokeswoman said he did not plan to change his schedule and meet with her. She and other families met with Bush about two months after Casey died, before she became a vocal opponent of the war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5228476,00.html
-
Retard...your stench is on enough threads....go somewhere else.....
Translation:
I'm a moron who hates too..... -
Retard...your stench is on enough threads....go somewhere else.....
Translation:
I'm a moron who hates too..... -
what does this response have to do with the original article you posted about a homeless man?
you really are pathetic..and pretty soon you are goin on IGNORE
you have not made 1 sensible post ever.
It all comes down to this, simple-mind.
Any conceivable device mechanized in any method or approach to oppress the proletariat by any way to keep them down. Even if it's detaining them. It's class discrimination squared. By the wealth-empowered ruling class. Fascism at one of its' highest moments.
Predictable. I'm not surprised.
Welcome to the police state.
Put me on ignore. Run and hide. You'll only prove my point.
-
so wheres the problem??
dont dodge the question.
This reminds me of the time I heard on the "news" that "terrorists" might try to use those advance paycheck companies. Now why would a terrorist someone who has money because al qaeda pays it's members lots of money to go on suicide missions need fast cash. Sorry but it makes no sense to me. They just want you to be suspicious of the poor which ties into this article. They just want to have an excuse to up the War on Poverty. Because the War on Poverty just like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and all the others are meant to be perpetual. The War on Poverty isn't about ending poverty in America it's about continuing the poverty cycle. They want the gap between the rich and the poor to grow, they want the poor to remain poor and never have the opportunities to improve their lives. If they did care about these things, then they would try to make post-secondary education more affordable, they would improve low-income housing, they wouldn't have welfare-to-work programs, they wouldn't have people living off of food stamps. I think you get the point.
-
Retard...your stench is on enough threads....go somewhere else.....
Translation:
I'm a moron who hates too..... -
as is destruction.....hopefully the medical authorities find him, or he starts taking his medication
Translation:
Support our troops. Run over a memorial.I have news for you half a fag.
Bush job approval rating.
Approve: 36%
Disapprove: 58%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
Enjoy worshipping your lame duck war-slut.
-
All kidding aside, the kid is mentally disturbed, and an obvious social misfit.....so he clings to these pathetic reaches in an effort to look smart, or give his pathetic existence some false sense of meaning......
He is the typical simpleton who thinks he is the the "in" club to be anti-Bush, yet doesn't have a clue what he talking about....he can only regurgitate the moveon.org talkig points sent by sheep phone to him....
The problem with useful idiots like destruction is their noise drowns out those who debate with legitimate merit, and offer honest and true dissent....jerkoffs liek destruction never had a good, or even just an alternative idea.....they just blab jibberish to mask their mental deficiencies....history has always shown that these blowhards are nothing more than insignificant noise....
Translation:
Harassing homeless people for fun is a good thing. It's the American way. -
This is bullshit he didn't say one untrue thing.
destruction you're a moron
"Islam is a terrorist organization" He didn't say that? Then what did he say? He said that 23 times on his july 25th program.
If you're saying that he didn't say one true thing, then congrats. You are sucker to the false generalizations and you believe that all islamics are terrorists, meaning you are also islamophobic. Like Graham.
I'm sorry but WMAL isn't going to bend their policy to accomodate his vomit. WMAL isn't going to put themselves at risk of losing their listener base, nor lose advertisers or put their FCC license at risk on the count of an islamophobic hate-whore only to benefit you and others who spew hate.
WMAL, Graham Exchange WordsAug. 22, 2005
By Tony Sanders
The debate over conservative talker Michael Graham’s statements and his subsequent dismissal from his on-air gig at ABC Radio’s news/talk WMAL is getting louder.
Graham was let go from his position as mid-morning talker (9 a.m.-11:45 a.m.) at WMAL last week. Over the weekend, Graham was quoted in an Aug. 21 report at the World Net Daily Web site saying that he was let go because “It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me . . .†and that “pressure from a special interest group like CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show.†Graham declared that “caving to this pressure is a disaster.â€
WMAL GM Chris Berry called BillboardRadioMonitor.com this afternoon and offered a statement in answer to Graham’s published comments.
“Typically we don't comment on personnel matters, but given the misstatements being communicated by Michael, I want to set the record straight.
“Some of Michael’s statements about Islam went over the line – and this isn’t the first time that he has been reprimanded for insensitive language and comments. In this case, as previously, Michael’s on-air statements do not reflect the attitudes or opinions of station management. I asked Michael for an on-air acknowledgement that some of his remarks were overly broad and, inexplicably, he refused.
“Michael has also tried to position this that we were pressured into taking disciplinary action against him. For the record we make our decisions independent of external pressures or third parties and we will not permit an employee to willfully violate our policies or disregard management direction.â€
I agree with the firing.
PS Silicone: Only morons hate.
Iraq critics are blowing in the wind
in Useless Blabber
Posted
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1892575.shtml