You are herecontent / Smearing Cindy Sheehan

Smearing Cindy Sheehan


By Farhad Manjoo
Salon.com
Saturday 13 August 2005

Conservatives are attacking her as a dupe of the left who's exploiting her dead son. Some relatives have piled on too. But the grieving mother says her well-timed Crawford visit is "my idea, my mission, my vision."

August was supposed to have been a quiet month for George W. Bush. Last year, the president cut short his customary weekslong vacation in order to campaign for reelection, so this year, unencumbered, he'd planned to spend more than a month in the sweltering heat of his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Then, last week, Cindy Sheehan, a grieving Northern California woman whose son was killed in Baghdad, Iraq in April 2004, showed up on Bush's vacation doorstep. She refuses to leave until Bush meets her in person. Nothing's been quiet in Crawford ever since.

It wouldn't be quite right to say that Sheehan's stand has vaulted the war back to the forefront of the national consciousness. Fresh horrors in Iraq daily are enough for that. But Sheehan is clearly forcing Bush to personally and publicly confront the consequences of his choices. And she's forcing reporters to pay attention, too. On Thursday, Bush was asked to respond to Sheehan's protest. "I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan," Bush said. "She feels strongly about her position. She has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America." But Bush also said that he disagrees with those Americans, like Sheehan, who want U.S. troops to pull out from Iraq. And he didn't suggest he'd be meeting with Sheehan anytime soon, either.

Sheehan insists that she's prepared to wait until Bush changes his mind. Sheehan, a founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, an antiwar group composed of families of troops killed in Iraq, has always been vocal in her opposition to the war. She participated in many rallies during the election last year, and even starred in an anti-Bush ad for MoveOn.org. She says that her late son Casey, a 24-year-old Army specialist who was killed in a rocket attack just two weeks after getting to the battlefield, felt the same way. And just as Casey went to Iraq to do his duty, Cindy Sheehan says she's got to take a stand in Crawford to do hers.

As a matter of politics, Sheehan's stand is brilliant. Bush's chief political asset is his embrace of the troops and their families; the longer he refuses to meet with Sheehan, the more unconcerned -- and even callous -- Bush risks looking to the public. And by providing a genuine news event in the hot, sleepy confines of Crawford, she's gotten far more media attention than she garnered as the star of a MoveOn ad. She's been profiled in dozens of papers and hailed in a New York Times editorial. Consequently, she's also been smeared by the right. Pundits have pointed out Sheehan's apparent inconsistencies -- in the past, she said that she believed Bush cares about the troops who've died, and she spoke warmly of a brief visit with the president after Casey's death that she now recalls as insincere and impersonal. All this week Matt Drudge has hammered on Sheehan, publicizing criticism by some of her family members, who say they support Bush and the war. On the Tuesday edition of his show, Fox host Bill O'Reilly said Sheehan's behavior "borders on treasonous."

Conservatives have assailed Sheehan for her association with Michael Moore (she has been blogging on Moore's Web site) and the antiwar group Code Pink. Some depict her as the left's dupe, but Sheehan insists she came up with the idea for the Crawford visit on her own. In a telephone conversation with Salon on Friday afternoon, Sheehan explained her inconsistencies and defended her association with Moore and others on the left. Just before the call, Bush's motorcade sped by "Camp Casey," which is what Sheehan calls the protest stand she's erected in her son's memory. The cars didn't even slow down.

So the president just drove by you a few minutes ago?

Well, I think he did, but I didn't see him. A bunch of trucks drove by really fast and there were people in them. I didn't see if any of them was the president, though. Chances are he was in the motorcade.

But needless to say he didn't make any signal, meet with you or anything like that?

No. They sped by really fast. And I don't want him to get out and shake my hand and just say, you know, whatever whatever. That's not the kind of meeting I want.

What kind of meeting do you want?

I want the kind of meeting that holds him accountable for the words he's actually said.

Well, do you want to debate with him? What do you mean by that?

What I want to ask is, "What noble cause did my son die for?" And if he says that it was to get rid of Saddam or liberate the Iraqi people, I'm not going to buy it. I want him to know that 62 million Americans oppose the war in Iraq. [During the interview, Sheehan used the number 62 million as well as 62 percent to refer to the strength of the opposition to the war. Recent polls show that majorities of Americans -- in some surveys more than 60 percent -- disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation in Iraq.]

Yesterday at a press conference the president acknowledged that many people want us to pull the troops from Iraq, and he specifically referred to you. What's your response to what he said?

Why didn't he say what Casey died for? And I've also asked them to quit using my son's name in vain, to stop saying that we have to continue the mission in Iraq to honor the sacrifice of the fallen heroes.

So as far as you're concerned he didn't address your concerns yesterday, and you're still looking for a meeting with him? Will you stay out there until he meets with you?

Yes. I'm going to be out here for the whole month of August unless he meets with me. I think I've said that a billion times.

But, realistically, do you think he's going to meet with you?

Well, I'd say that nothing is impossible. But, you know, probably not.

Tell me what it's like out there.

It's really, really hot, but there's so many people here and our spirits are so high. We know we're doing a good thing. We have four Methodist ministers, and Bob Edgar [the general secretary of the National Council of Churches]. They came out and did a prayer service after the president drove by. And there's people with bright yellow hair, and there's people from all walks of life. It's really cool.

One of the things that your critics have said -- critics on the right -- is that you're making this into a media spectacle. And I've even heard people say that by being out there you're dishonoring the memory of your son and other people who died in the war. How do you respond to that?

Well, I believe I'm honoring my son and people who died in the war by using their sacrifices for peace and love, not for war and hatred. I can't speak for the other people whose children have died, but I can speak for my family and the other members of Gold Star Families for Peace. We believe we're honoring our children by working for peace.

And it has turned into a media circus. But that's not my fault. You know, I just came out here to confront the president and stop this war.

The media attention -- obviously, though, that's been helpful to your cause.

I believe it's very helpful to the cause. You know what, the war has gone off the front pages. It's gone off the mainstream media, and this has put it back on where it belongs, even if there has to be a grieving mother sitting outside Crawford, you know? I'm only really doing the media's job for them.

What do you think your efforts are doing for the larger antiwar movement?

I believe it's galvanizing the peace movement -- I like to call it "peace movement" because that has more of a positive connotation than "antiwar." I know that 62 percent of the American public believe the war was a mistake and we should bring our troops home. I think it's giving those people a voice. People are dropping everything and coming from everywhere around the country to be here in Crawford, Texas.

It's getting them off the fence to do something. Someone said that the opposite of good is not evil but apathy. This has really given people something to do.

You've always been against the war in Iraq, is that right?

Yes.

And I also want to ask about your son, his feelings about the war.

Casey disagreed with the war. He didn't feel George Bush was using the troops in an effective way. Or in a good way. And I begged him not to go because he knew it was wrong. But he said, "You know what, Mom, I have to go. It's my duty. And my buddies are going."

Last year you met with the president. Tell me how that came about, and tell me what happened during that meeting.

We were invited by the protocol office at Ft. Lewis, Wash. They said the president wanted to have a sit-down with us. And we decided we wouldn't use that time to debate the war with him. We wanted him to look at Casey, we wanted him to know about Casey, we wanted him to know what an indispensable part of humanity he was.

Tell me what the president was like during that meeting.

Well, he walked in and he said, "So who are we honorin' here?" He didn't know our name. He totally was disrespectful. He called me "Mom" the whole time. And he said some disrespectful things to us.

There's been an account of you saying that you did think he was respectful during that meeting. [In June 2004, Sheehan told the Reporter, a newspaper in her home of Vacaville, Calif., that she believed Bush was "sorry" and felt "some pain for our loss."]

Because at the end of the meeting, I said, "What are we doing here, Mr. President? We didn't vote for you in 2000, we're not going to vote for you this time. We're lifelong Democrats."

And he said, "It's not about politics." So we said, OK, we wouldn't use it about politics and we tried to put a positive spin on it. But if you read the whole article you'll see we already had misgivings about what was going on. A lot has been taken out of context.

Well, you said, "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis ... I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss." Do you still think he feels some pain for your loss?

No, no, I don't think he does at all. Because it was all about politics. When he talks about how he meets with the families and they say, "Mr. President, we pray for you" -- you know what, that's not true. He used it for politics, because he doesn't go to funerals and stuff like that. That's what it was all about.

I'm just trying to get a sense, though, when you said that he feels some pain for your loss -- you didn't really mean that then, or at least you don't think that now?

I don't even know what I meant back in June of 2004. I was in shock, I was in grief. I'm still in a deep state of grief but I'm not in shock anymore. When he said it was not about politics I believed him. But he made it all about politics and that's when I stopped believing him.

Yesterday there was a report -- I'm not sure how accurate it is -- but it was apparently a statement from other members of your family that said they disagree with what you're doing.

I think it's accurate. I think my husband's family did write that. But I don't really give -- I don't care what they wrote. Because, No. 1, it's their opinion and they're entitled to it. But No. 2, they called him something like "our dear Casey." You know they're hypocrites. They didn't even know Casey. They didn't spend any time with him in his life, and now they're using his death for political reasons, I think.

Casey's my hero because of the way he lived, not because of the way he died. For these people who never ever went out of their way to spend any time with him to actually dare speak for him, I think it's hypocritical. Casey lived a great life and he was an honorable man and he died in a dishonorable war.

What about other members of your family -- are there people in your family who do agree with you?

My immediate family, Casey's dad and my three children and my sister, we're all on the same page. And I really think that some of my husband's siblings are with us too.

And I want to say something else, too. They said they support the troops. You know what? I support the troops. How's anything I'm doing showing that I don't support the troops?

What about parents of other soldiers who've been killed?

I would say the majority would agree with what I'm doing, because the majority of Americans think that this war is based on lies and deceptions and they think it was a mistake and they want the troops to come home.

Do you hear from many others?

I hear from them all the time, I do. We had a lot of military families speak out here. We have a lot here whose kids are still in harm's way, and whose kids have died.

One thing I want to ask you is about the other groups that are supporting you. Some people on the right have been saying that you're being "used" -- that's the quote I've heard. You're being used by extreme left-wing groups. How do you respond to that?

I respond that this was my idea. This was my mission. This was my vision. And what we're all doing is we're working for peace. And all these groups together are working for peace. And they're helping me with my vision. You know they're not using me, and maybe I'm using them because they're helping me out tremendously in this action.

But what about the pragmatics of it -- if you associate with someone like Michael Moore do you risk losing the mainstream?

I think Michael Moore is an amazing man, an amazing, brave man. And I think people are probably going to start saying don't associate with Cindy Sheehan. People who speak truth to power somehow are marginalized in this country.

I know you're going to be out there for the month of August. How long do you think the media's going to pay attention to you? Do you worry about that?

I don't really care. I didn't come out here to do this for the media. I came out here to do this to end the war. If the mainstream media's not here we've got blogs, we've got the Internet. It'll still keep going. Smart America will know what's going on. They're the ones who are going to put pressure on the elected officials to effect any change.

--------

Farhad Manjoo is a Salon staff writer.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well if he happens to say the reason for the war was to remove sadam.. or rid iraq of WMDs I would ask him then... isn't the war already over? Iraq has no WMD's and sadam is out of power... these are the noble causes.. but they have already been achived... what "nobel cuase" is left? What are we doing there now? To ensure the iraqi people "choose" democracy?

Bush can't invent reasons for the war now, nto just because he lacks the requisite creativity and credibility, but because he presented Congress with his official reasons for the war here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/611

Think about it. We didn't stick around the first time and look at the damage Saddam did to the Iraqi people. President Bush is making sure he completes the job this time instead of pulling out so quickly like his father.

I served four years in the Air Force and all I have to say is that no one stuck a gun to my head to serve. Her son chose to re-enlist, especially during a time of war, it's not like he had to.

Her son was doing a duty to the country. If we did not have a military we would be getting walked over like so many other countries. Remember when Kuwait was invaded? Remember how the British originally took over the now United States from the Indians?

She needs to wake up and smell some coffee. Granted I do not have a son/daughter that I have lost, so I do not know what she is feeling, but she had her opportunity with Bush, she does not get a do over.

Also, what her and her stupid protesters have done is invade the city of Crawford Texas with their port-a-potties and disturbing of the city. I totally agree with what Bush's neighbor was doing by "testing" his gun for dove season. By holding your little protest you are just invading others privacy. Nice going!

You are so uninformed.

Plausible, but false. This was an atrocious, aggressive, unlawful action from the start. Our military are sworn to defend the United States and the Constitution. The United States was under no threat from Iraq. But our soldiers are being killed, and America is kept distracted while this bunch of thugs shreds the Constitution, guts the officer's corps of ethical servicemen (to be replaced by their lunatic fringe yes-men), smears and froths hatred from their lying mouths against people of good character, and generally has all the earmarks of a facist regime. This administration has all sorts of plans, but you know what? I don't agree with them, and after five years of seeing how they operate, I definitely will not go in the direction they lead. I'm a Christian. "By their fruits shall you know them," said Jesus. Their fruit is rotten to the core...riddled with lust for power, lust for profit. Another trite (but true) expression: "Birds of a feather flock together." Remember Enron. Look at Halliburton. Think of WorldCom. Look at Abramoff and Bob Taft and Tom DeLay.

I can't be in Texas, but I'm doing what I can where I am. I stand with Cindy. Why are we in this war, but for power and profit for a few who already have too much.

And in case you're wondering who I am, my name is Melinda Hoehn, and if you were actually in the Airforce, and not a rewarded sycophant, you should be ashamed of yourself.

And in case you're wondering who I am, my name is Melinda Hoehn, and if you were actually in the Airforce, and not a rewarded sycophant, you should be ashamed of yourself.

It must be something in the water........something is causing people to go brain dead. Does this fellow understand anything about world affairs? Doesn't he know that it's against international law to invade any country for the sake of regime change? Has he forgot that we went to Iraq to stop them from unleashing their WMD's on the U.S? If we were concerned about genicide, why didn't we invade several African countries where many more citizens have been killed than Saddam ever killed in Iraq? Of course, these countries didn't have any oil and we couldn't borrow billions from China to pay Bectel, Haliburton, KBR and others to do massive re-construction on 'open ended' contracts.

Oh, what's the use? Some people will just go on thinking that Bush is the 'second coming' and nothing he does can be wrong! I still say that it's something in the water........what elso could make people to be so blind to what's happening around them?

I believe the only thing you forgot to mention is that during the first gulf war Saddam had not yet made the decision to only accept Euros for the purchases of his oil instead of dollars so there was no need to remove him at that time. But, when he quit accepting the dollar he became a very evil man. Did you know he tortured people? Well, so does the Bush regime and in the US we let the disabled die of starvation. George Washington warned in his farewell address that people would support the faction (party) at the expense of the country. By blinding supporting someone because there's an R after his name rather then looking at the truth is a sad example of Washington's point.

but I think that the synapses in the brains of some
people are not being bridged by the little electro-chemical
impulse. Perhaps the synapse is too wide or the impulse
is too weak....who knows? :-)

but I think that the synapses in the brains of some
people are not being bridged by the little electro-chemical
impulse. Perhaps the synapse is too wide or the impulse
is too weak....who knows? :-)

It's just another troll dressed in the honest but bewildered role of American Serviceman.

That isn't the point. The point is he served. He did his duty for his country. Bush and Co. used Casey's service as well as all the other servicemen and women to fulfill an agenda. The war was illegal and unnecessary. We have lowered our standards for this President. If anybody has raised the standards it has been people like Cindy Sheehan and Sibel Edmonds the FBI whistleblower who are making people accountable for their actions.
And another thing, a lot of those "stupid protesters" are vets.

This is supposed to go as a reply to the guy below me.

He volunteered and knew what could happen. Did u see that second word? VOLUNTEERED! You type in Dictionary on google and get some good definitions. And wow over a year since her kids death and wonder what made her get all preachy now? Why cant they ever find some supermodel to talk about hippie anti-war pro-commie propoganda. it would be a lot easy to swallow that lookin at that troll spew it! Its sad to say but the left has found another TOOL to exploit. IM sure dean is behind it somehow.. my God that man is brilliant. I wish he did some Siche Heils and goose stepping in jack boots on tv , which im sure he does in the mirror every night.

way to lash out man... that was classic... no one name calls quite like a conservative... well maybe a highschooler...

Cindy Sheehan is nobody's dupe. Her thoughts, her beliefs and her message to the world are very clear. She knows the truth about this administration and if she loves her son, which she does and fiercely, she can only honor him by speaking it.

Here's an interesting article on one person who, while insignificant, his story did come up number one in a Google news search using "cindy sheehan." His arguments against Cindy are typical. His real beliefs, however, are frightening. Go check
http://floridablues.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/08/those_who_smear.html

Cindy's stay in Crawford will begin to require all sorts of resources.

For your support:

http://www.meetwithcindy.org/

Cindy's stay in Crawford will begin to require all sorts of resources.

For your support:

http://www.meetwithcindy.org/

So, whatever happened to the downing street memo? I guess since it said that there were WMD in Iraq that it is has been pretty difficult for the moonbats to get much traction from it.

But you have been blessed with a new cause in the name of Cindy Sheehan who's story changes more that most of you change underwear.

Yesterday in fact she claimed there were 700 people at Camp Casey. The AP and NBC put it more like 100, unless you count the 250 people protesting against her. The woman is dilusional but that could be expected, a year ago. Maybe the loss of her son has done permanent damage though too and that can also be expected.

It's a free country and she can camp in a ditch and diss the President all she wants. Not too many people really care one way or the other. Her family evidently doesn't as not one, nadda, no one from her family is joining her. When her crusade is over, as i expect it is now, she will be left with all of you hanger's on who are hoping against hope that you can somehow change the last election and George Bush will still be president with his own family in tact.

So what's next guys? You had Kerry running in Florida claiming Bush stole it in 2000, Bush increased his margin of victory over that stategy by 659%, nice job.

You had voter fraud in Ohio, turned out to be a lie and Bush won that state too.

The famous "Downing street memo" yawnnn. The only thing that did was show the left that you don't take a memo that in fact says there were WMD in Iraq and try and prove with the same memo that Bush made it up.

Now you have found either a grief stricken mom or just another activist. and you are all her groupies.

Keep up the good work and keep buying that tin foil

Don't be so quick to assume the Downing Street Memo
is "off the table", as they say.
To ASSUME anything makes an ASS of U, not ME.

That all of this gets you so riled up, you come here spreading your fake nonsense bullshit. I think that plays the message nicely, doesn't it?

And the downing street minutes never went away, did they? Cindy and everyone else brings them up at every opportunity. We went to war for Iraq, it wasn't this, it wasn't that. Those were all lies. So what was it for?

WAS IT FOR OIL? IS THAT THE TRUTH? Most likely yes. Will the president admit that it was for oil, and admit the truth? Not right now, most likely no being the coward he is. He will have to though as the summer heat drags on, and we all force him to. That's what the real "mission" is and we're going to get it done.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/blog.html

Hey now, with everything else the so called "left" has been right about there's no reason to apologize at all. Its time to drive the stake through the middle, of your cold, reckless ignorant gullability.

Doug E.

What a YAWNINGLY predictable argument. Can't you people
come up with anything original. Polly-wanna-cracker?

I only have the interest in clarifying one of the many statements
in your (robs) post above. Cindy said there were about 700 people THROUGH Camp Casey...THROUGH....THROUGH.
Not all there at one time.
Do you understand?

That all of this gets you so riled up, you come here spreading your fake nonsense bullshit. I think that plays the message nicely, doesn't it?

And the downing street minutes never went away, did they? Cindy and everyone else brings them up at every opportunity. We went to war for Iraq, it wasn't this, it wasn't that. Those were all lies. So what was it for?

WAS IT FOR OIL? IS THAT THE TRUTH? Most likely yes. Will the president admit that it was for oil, and admit the truth? Not right now, most likely no being the coward he is. He will have to though as the summer heat drags on, and we all force him to. That's what the real "mission" is and we're going to get it done.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/blog.html

Hey now, with everything else the so called "left" has been right about there's no reason to apologize at all. Its time to drive the stake through the middle, of your cold, reckless ignorant gullability.

Doug E.

Hey doug, I'm not riled up at all. I am just stating the facts. While I thought about it I won't call you names either.

To answer you , yes the downing street memo is dead Doug get over it. When you read the whole memo which obviously you havn't done it says that there are WMD in Iraq. It is soooo over. That is why the only one's talking about it is you and Sheehan.

Annonymous, so you are saying that 600 people showed up and said this sucks and left or what ?

ineveitabley though you did end up calling names... funny...

"To answer you , yes the downing street memo is dead Doug get over it. When you read the whole memo which obviously you havn't done it says that there are WMD in Iraq. It is soooo over. That is why the only one's talking about it is you and Sheehan."

you are talking about it right now... you came to this site to talk about it, and you got us all talking about it... thankyou... The DMS never says "there are WMD in Iraq" what a joke... I've been following the specific movemnet for several months now and there has never been as much attention as thier is now, so convincing anyone here that it is "dead", or "over" just ins't going to fly. One of the best indicators, I think, that you actaully have something going for you is when you start attracting detractors like yourself...I don't rember seeing a single detractor on here untill the shehan story broke full steam into the mainstream media... so actually the cause is advancing by all indications...

I am sure you have all heard this one....
"first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

I think Cindy is right, George Bush is about to be fired by WE THE PEOPLE!

more resources here
http://www.benfrank.net/crawford/

That all of this gets you so riled up, you come here spreading your fake nonsense bullshit. I think that plays the message nicely, doesn't it?

And the downing street minutes never went away, did they? Cindy and everyone else brings them up at every opportunity. We went to war for Iraq, it wasn't this, it wasn't that. Those were all lies. So what was it for?

WAS IT FOR OIL? IS THAT THE TRUTH? Most likely yes. Will the president admit that it was for oil, and admit the truth? Not right now, most likely no being the coward he is. He will have to though as the summer heat drags on, and we all force him to. That's what the real "mission" is and we're going to get it done.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/blog.html

Hey now, with everything else the so called "left" has been right about there's no reason to apologize at all. Its time to drive the stake through the middle, of your cold, reckless ignorant gullability.

Doug E.

Hey Doug, I am not riled up, I am just enjoying the evening and I am sure not using the normal jouvenile practice of calling you a slob or anything other than now a jouvenile, at least in thinking.

In case you havn't noticed the downing street memo has gone away, well maybe not in sheehans mind but it sure isn't talked about in the media. You had a problem with that one, if you remember in my first post I said it was hard to say the president lied about WMD when the memo you are using said saddamm uhm had WMD. If you can answer that brilliant stategy then maybe someone will take notice of you again.

As for annonymous, you mean they had 600 who said this sucks and split or what ?

Your message makes no sense. There is no "annnonnymaus" users here. We all have a name and a face, and there is no such thing as the word "jouvenile".

Can you please look up how to spell these things next time? Or should I put a "wird" in for your boss at Texas County Barbecue?

Seriously now, you are probably some poor 20 year old kid who is waking up to the fact the Bush Admin lied everyone into war. Yeah well, they did. And its a tough fact of life, which a bunch of your friends may be dead for.

The sooner you realize this, the better. The DSM never went away, it just got louder and bigger and more mainstream. Now we know for a fact, the niger documents were forgeries and inserted to make the case for War. The war was based on lies, that are being investigated to this date and the truth will set us free.

Doug Eldritch

Sorry dougy , I didn't spell check before I posted. So now that you attacked my spelling how about explaining why the downing street memo said there were WMD. You keep avoiding that ?

Trust me I make typos all the time so I understand how lame it is to question spelling... But the funny thing is that they weren't typos becuase you used the word "jouvinle" twice, that tells me you actually thought that was the spelling... As for the DSM, perhaps you can quote which part you are refering to that mentions that sadam has WMD's so that someone can acurately debuke your statement with some sort of context...

Hi girls, it's midnight here and I am 53 not 20 and am off to bed. As for reading the "smoking gun downing street memo" I just scanned it off your website and here is what i was talking about.

Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

Now I know only 3 paragraphs out of 13 mention the fact that saddam had WMD but 3 paragraphs out of 13 say saddam had WMD.

And also this one

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

So call me crazy, I guess you could (if you were a liberal looking for a cause blow off the first paragraph and say that " well duh none is less that iran, libya or north korea") Of course if the writer of the memo believed that he could have just said "Saddam doesn't have WMD".

If he thought that though he probably wouldn't be talking about what he did in the second paragraph.

if Saddam used WMD on day one.

And of course there is this part of the memo. I know I spell badly sometimes but can you girls read?

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

"if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

Its spelled Defense by the way, for Defense policy. You also not surprisingly missed the two most important lines:

""For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD [...]." " -Paul Ricketts
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/larisa/downing_street_documents_613

"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
Okay so what was that now? Iraq's WMD capability did not exist, and they were specifically discussing the need to wrongfoot Saddom. Paul Wolfowitz is a known disinformation propaganda spy, for the Israel Mossad. Did he honestly think they were going to find WMD? No..

Oh I forgot that depends on what your meaning of the word, "is" is. They were fixing the facts around the policy, and that says it all. A lie from the very beginning.

Doug E.

It's clear you don't understand the context of this memo... You act as though this memo was scripted by one person. There is NO mention that Iraq has WMD's, never not once... Not even in the passages you quoted. Just because someone rasies the point "what if sadam uses WMD's" does not mean that he actually has them, or even that they believe he has them... that's what "what if" means... does it ever say "we have determined that iraq has WMD's? No it is simply a recording of what took place in a meeting of people reporting what they had encountered in a meeting with US officials. There are no intellegance "facts" in the memo and certainly no claims that iraq has WMD's. Furthermore there is clearly no evedence that iraq could use them against americans, unless we physicaly put ourselves in range... In the lead up to the war, if you were paying attention back then, the Administration was trying to make it seem to the american people, at least, as though the WMD's were nuculer wepons, but the intellegance returned by the UN inspectors showed that Sadams WMD's were of a chemical nature... and could only be used on troops if we were to invade and put them in harms way, not against the US, as was claimed by the administration... Also it mentioned that these cemical wepons componets were not ready for use due to previous UN inspections and sanctions... the biggest WMD used in the iraq conflict is turning out to be our very own DU amuntion.

I outlined all the facts to him and he goes and "hides" proving he didn't know what the hell he was saying. Same for Robs...Robs and his friends could be called in to die for a lie, the least duty I have is making sure they know what that lie is.

Iraq never was a threat, Saddam wasn't either, and we invaded the whole country based on a lie. If we wanted to handle the situation there was all sorts of options. Instead they manufactured evidence, lied, and evaded any questions because Cheney & Israel likuds needed the oil THAT bad, and THAT fast....

Doug E

I didn't expect you to agree with me although you have to be spinning alot when a memo says "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The operative work there is "was" meaning he had WMD capability. There is nothing in that paragraph that says "if" "maybe" .

Anyway I am not going to change your mind, I was just pointing out that you have a very weak memo to be hanging your hat on.

Ha, and dougy is still slamming my spelling, even when I copy and paste from the memo.

By the way I didn't say I made a typo. I said I mispelled.

Read the downing street memos instead of talking about them, and there's your answer.

It says:

"But the need to wrongfoot Saddom was being justified by the conjunction of Iraqi WMD, and the intelligence & facts were being fixed around the policy"

Read all of the downing street minutes, and there's your answer. In. Plain. Sight.

Doug E.

Do you have a different memo than the one that is posted on here? Your quote was.

"But the need to wrongfoot Saddom was being justified by the conjunction of Iraqi WMD, and the intelligence & facts were being fixed around the policy"

The quote from the memo posted here is as follows. Oh and by the way you spelled saddam wrong in you quote.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

I don't understand why you would make such an obvious lie when the memo is lurking around on this site?

TRY READING IT

" The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SORs and the critical importance of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skilfully, [sic] we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/raw_acquires_meyer_need_to_wrongfoot_sadda...

""For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD [...]." " -Paul Ricketts
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/larisa/downing_street_documents_613

"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
Okay so what was that now? Iraq's WMD capability did not exist, and they were specifically discussing the need to wrongfoot Saddom. Paul Wolfowitz is a known disinformation propaganda spy, for the Israel Mossad. Did he honestly think they were going to find WMD? No..

Oh I forgot that depends on what your meaning of the word, "is" is. Which means you were just caught in another backpedaling lie. Fixing the facts around the policy, from the very start in 2001, and that says it all. A lie from the very beginning.

Doug E.

Dougy,

In all your ranting you failed to answer why you made up the fake quote?

Just like with your spelling, I think you probably need help with your reading comprehension... The paragaph never indicates that anyone believes iraq has WMD's. For spelling we have spell checkers, unfortunately for you therte is no such thing as a comprehension checker... Well I guess that's what we are....

....about 700 people came THROUGH Camp Casey to support them and visit a while. You are too tiresome to even bother with.
Go back where you came from.

Or 600 came through and said this sucks and left. Either way there is never over 100 there at anytime and according the the pictures on this website...maybe 2 dozen. Keep spinning and I am where I came from.

bushco gave us 2 civil wars
one here
one in iraq

bushco gave us 2 civil wars
one here
one in iraq

bushco gave us 2 civil wars
one here
one in iraq

sure seems to be true. it must have been waiting to happen
for a long time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.