I would like to share with the Rantburg crowd a little tidbit about our congressman who visited us yesterday. We got to ask him a lot of questions and he truly answered them. When asked about the immigration bill, he noted that his office was being flooded with anti-immigration calls/letters/emails. He said before the bill, he got around 40 contacts per day. He is now getting 400+ a day over the bill, mostly anti-immigration contacts and he had to hire two extra temps to sort through it all. He also confirmed that congress is getting hammered with people that want this bill to die. His opinion is that the bill will not pass the Senate because of the backlash.
It is not too much to say there is a war going on right across the border. Its not a hot war with firefights all the time. It is not a cold war, either, with posturing and press releases. Lets call it a warm war. Violence breaks out from time to time for reasons unknown to us, but completely unpredictable.
And heres the part you dont want to hear. Violence has spread across the border and has resulted in several deaths of Americans residents and visitors. Most such crimes are reported as isolated incidents. But the violence in northern Mexico is not stopping at the border. Its headed this way and a lot of Tucsonans know it.
It is crossing the border because there is little to stop it. The Border Patrol is in virtual rebellion against its supervisors. They have felt betrayed by prosecution of some of them for what they see as doing their job. Union Local 2544 of the Border Patrol has published its position of no confidence in supervisory and command personnel. They have called a meeting (members only) for June 13 to consider their options.
You cant learn about it in most media, but the whispers around town are people saying they are thinking of getting out. It looks like war and its coming here. No government has acted to protect Americans living in Southern Arizona. Our federal government is in full collapse as far as the southern border is concerned. All we get from them is talk. The only action we see is toward integrating Mexico into the U.S. and Canada.
#1
If someone wanted to come up with a plan to open up the border as wide as possible by neutralizing every border patrol agent, prosecuting a couple of them for doing their job border would be the perfect way to do it. Only an incompetant fool would miss this. Now I only have to decide if our government is run by weasels or incompetants.
#2
As I've suggested in past, not a whole lot will be done until their is a major incident with Mexican army attacking and probably killing American civilians with more than small arms.
#3
As I've suggested in past, not a whole lot will be done until their is a major incident with Mexican army attacking and probably killing American civilians with more than small arms
At which point, Anonymoose, the "World" will call on USA to negotiate a "Peace for Land" deal with Mexico.
#6
Uh, Mexicans are already killing at least 7000 Americans each year in the US. That's just the illegal population, not counting Mexican immigrants. How many did America lose last year in Iraq and Afghanistan combined? 800? Now where is the quagmire.
Posted by: ed ||
06/01/2007 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I was too optimistic. I thought the murders committed by illegal aliens were around 2000.
Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers for another annual death toll of 4,745.
That's 9100 dead each year. An extraordinary body count when you consider there are 200 million Americans age 15-64 compared to 12 million estimated illegals (5.7%).
2005 Murder and non negligent manslaughter: 4,380 of 16,692 = 26%. Let's face it, a disproportionate lot of the remaining 74% are caused by legal Latin immigrants.
2005 drunk driving deaths: 4,745 of 16,885 = 28%.
Extraordinary and the silence is deafening.
Posted by: ed ||
06/01/2007 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
No government has acted to protect Americans living in Southern Arizona. Our federal government is in full collapse as far as the southern border is concerned. All we get from them is talk. The only action we see is toward integrating Mexico into the U.S. and Canada.
Despite our government's best efforts, the truth finally begins to leak out from around the edges of its monumental coverup. ed's statistics are just the iceberg's tip when you begin accounting for gang related crime, welfare, grafitti vandalism, lost jobs and accidents involving undocumented uninsured drivers.
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.
I did the Hewitt show. We discussed Fred Thompson, whom I like hes good ol Uncle Fred, the cool slow-talkin relative who has a beer with your dad and maybe tousles your hair as you run past, and who may or may not have shot a man in Reno back in 67. Well, thats what you heard mom tell her friend.
#1
I am old enough to remember his business-like approach at the Nixon impeachment hearings. He didn't over-reach for evidence like Fat Sam or the mouthy Hawaiian. Does anyone know what I am talking about?
"If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be a jihadist. The thing that drives these guys -- a sense of adventure, wanting to be part of the moment, wanting to be in the big movement of history that's happening now -- that's the same thing that drives me, you know?" No. I don't know. And I sorely wish I could tell him so -- "him" being David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, senior commander in Iraq.
With this bizarro depiction of jihadists-as-swashbucklers, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, an Australian Army officer "on loan" to the U.S. government, should probably have been sent back with: "And I suppose if you had been a German during a certain world war, you would have been a Nazi, eh? Who more than those Third Reich 'guys' wanted to be in 'the big movement of history'? Grr. Thanks, mate, but no thanks. Go play Abu Robin al-Hood down under."
Of course, Col. Kilcullen made his outrageous comment almost six months ago to the New Yorker's George Packer and is still on the job. But when a key counterinsurgency advisor in Iraq identifies with jihadists, it's not just a matter of surrealism -- hallucinations -- at the top. As they say at NASA when things are about to fall out of the sky: Houston, we've got a problem.
Why? Such remarks convey either non-comprehension or indifference to the evil nature of jihad. Or both. Such neutrality, if that's the word for it, also marks Col. Kilcullen's discussion of his big, formative idea: lessons drawn from what he refers to as "an Islamic insurgency in West Java and a Christian-separatist insurgency in East Timor." In the latter case, the language is jarring for what Serge Trifkovic has described this way: "In the motivation, patterns, and perceptions of the actors on the ground -- killers and victims alike -- East Timor was an Islamic jihad against Christian infidels" that left as many as 200,000 East Timorese dead.
In Col. Kilcullen's Islam-blind view of the world, such events become plain-vanilla conflicts without moral distinction, differentiated only by the advent of global media coverage -- a large obstacle, he maintains, to winning counterinsurgencies. Indeed, he compares Indonesia's role in East Timor (where Indonesia ultimately failed, he says, due to global media) with the U.S. role in Iraq. This is a weirdly shocking way to see the American struggle against varyingly jihadist factions -- particularly for someone advising the U.S. military.
It's hard to say what's worse: ignorance of jihad, for which there's no excuse at this advanced stage of war, or indifference to it, for which there's never an excuse. Both attitudes deeply imbue U.S. war policy. As Col. Kilcullen would (and has) put it, "the Islamic bit is secondary." Far more important to this Australian anthropologist are what he calls "social networks." Mr. Packer writes: "He noted that all fifteen Saudi [September 11] hijackers had trouble with their fathers." Oh, brother -- as if half the people in the world don't have trouble with their fathers (but don't hijack airplanes for Allah).
The New Yorker story continues: Although "radical ideas" lead young men to become jihadists, "the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates."
Sounds like our problem is a cell phone calling plan, not jihadist Islam. Little wonder Col. Kilcullen is also down on the phrase "war on terror." That's because, as Mr. Packer writes, the concept (elliptical as it is) "suggests an undifferentiated enemy" engaged in global jihad. Col. Kilcullen strives to "disaggregate" insurgencies by disconnecting the Islamic dots linking various terror-states and terrorists. He prefers to see jihadist movements in terms of so many local grievances. It's as if he has taken the defunct Bush doctrine "You're with us or you're against us" and changed it to: "You're really not with anyone, and certainly not anyone Islamic."
To what end? Difficult to say, particularly when, according to the New Yorker, his example of "disaggregation" is the Indonesian province of Aceh. Here, he maintains, Western tsunami aid and resentment of outsiders prevented Aceh from "becoming," as the article put it, "part of the global jihad" a funny sort of victory to claim in a place where, increasingly, Shariah rules.
Of course, maybe the man "disaggregates" Shariah, too, reducing it to so many differentiated social networks. Just the thing, as Col. Kilcullen might say, for family, friends and associates with that jihadist sense of adventure.
#1
Is Kilcullen correct? Is the "wanting to be a part of the movement" as big a factor in joining the jihadists as religious conviction?
If so, that changes what sort of propaganda campaign we need to wage--focus on the "jihadist on Muslim" violence to make it look less like an adventure against the great satan and more like gangsterism, for example. Knowing your enemy is very useful.
And if I were talking about "disaggregation" I would _not_ talk about ongoing campaigns, but about something relatively innocuous and irreversible.
The quotes given don't convince me that Kilcullen is "neutral." On the contrary, if he is on our side (and since Petraeus trusts him I suspect he is), then he may be an extremely useful ally.
Posted by: James ||
06/01/2007 9:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
What else is there for third world muslim men to do (30-40% unemployment, abject poverty, martyrdom on the horizon, spreading Allan's will, memorizing the Koran 24/7)? What would you choose?
Don't you have to have your counter-insurgency people get down in the muck to figure out what makes the jihadis tick, besides the time bomb?
"Such remarks convey either non-comprehension or indifference to the evil nature of jihad."
Here's the problem, IMO. Jihadi's aren't going to see the light. Our morals/set of beliefs are so different from the follower's of Allan that breaking it down into a good vs. evil choice is unproductive for a counter-insurgency fighter in figuring out how to break them.
Further, that's not what Col. Kilcullen's job is. If you don't or can't understand his responses, have him further explain his findings/reasonings. However, it'll take longer than a 30 min/1 hour interview.
#3
Don't forget that all those jihadis are being paid pretty well (including per diems for expenses and life insurance going to the wives and kiddies -- at least for those working for Al Qaesa), when most of them would be languishing in more or less educated unemployment otherwise. For all those not wearing bomb vests, this is a career choice as much as anything; and for the rest, this is a way to send a little something home while being fed and housed from someone else's budget.
#4
"islam" is essentially a rape cult. Young men raised in the cult are forbidden to have sex excepting some random-looking young lady wearing a garbage bag chosen by relatives even the dimmest bulb must recognize do not have his interests at heart.
So what to do? Well, you may consider a career in jihad, a Gorean (John Norman Gor not al-Gor) exercise in which captive slave-b*tches may be used for sex, literally bought and sold and this is not only above board but emulating the life of the cult's prophet. Age is no barrier either so go ahead and kidnap, rape and kill children as you like (Beslan being the first example which comes to mind perhaps because it was white Russian children being raped as opposed to the literally countless black girls and boys raped and enslaved in Darfur or elsewhere).
Best of all, if things go south and you die in the process of this little adventure you go direct to Paradise and rape virgins for the rest of eternity. I am not saying jihadis are bright - after all they really believe this evil nonsense - but one cannot say that lack an incentive.
#5
In the latter case, the language is jarring for what Serge Trifkovic has described this way: "In the motivation, patterns, and perceptions of the actors on the ground -- killers and victims alike -- East Timor was an Islamic jihad against Christian infidels" that left as many as 200,000 East Timorese dead.
Remember that name. I'll be posting an article by Trifkovic this weekend. The man truly gets it when it comes to successful strategies against Islamic jihad.
Although "radical ideas" lead young men to become jihadists, "the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates."
Like a stopped clock, here Kilcullen is quite right. High context cultures are very dependent upon familial ties and their influence in society. Terrorism does run in families, which is what makes it so difficult to ferret out. I will not be surprised if cult-induced homicidal psychosis proves to be a congenital predisposition.
Sounds like our problem is a cell phone calling plan, not jihadist Islam.
It is, for all the reasons mentioned above and more. Put together, this is one more reason why collective punishment of Muslims will be required in order to have any effect upon global jihad.
Little wonder Col. Kilcullen is also down on the phrase "war on terror." That's because, as Mr. Packer writes, the concept (elliptical as it is) "suggests an undifferentiated enemy" engaged in global jihad.
A sterling example of how politically correct thinking is strangling the Global War on Terrorism. Islam, not Islamism, not radical Islam, not jihadist Islam, not Salafism, not Wahabbism, not Deobandism, not fundamentalist Islam, but ISLAM is the problem. It is undifferentiated by the central role of Koranic doctrine which is universal to all Muslims and the root of all terrorism. The fanatics are merely a high profile example of the overall malaise.
He gives some interesting figures on the cost to Pakistan of its jihad on India
Free trade destroys many orders. It destroys the self-sufficient state. It destroys boundaries that maintain separated identities. It also destroys ideologies that work only in insulation. It destroys dominance of the state too.
Tribal societies, based on delimited food-scarce territories, are undermined by trade. Warriors dont like trade and traders. The national security state with a backlog of just wars to be fought for national honour is aghast at the prospect of becoming feminine through accepting the insertion of enemy imports.
Today Pakistan is on the threshold of entering the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) which really means opening up with India. But it has not ratified the SAFTA treaty while everyone else in South Asia has. It might actually get out of SAFTA, as remaining inside it means making India a Most Favoured Nation.
The prevalent argument is that India must make a move on Kashmir first. What if India did make that move? Will free trade with India become safe then? Those who argue against free trade with India put forward arguments that have nothing to do with Kashmir.
They refer to the configuration of the national economy of Pakistan that will not gibe with the more powerful industrial configuration of India. Although the industrialists of Pakistan object to opening up with India less and less these days, the national security thinkers do make reference to competitive disadvantage of opening up.
They must persuade prime minister Shaukat Aziz to graduate from his conditionality of Kashmir to actually getting out of the SAFTA agreement whose Article 8 recommends an integration of the regional economies.
Article 8 refers to removal of intra-SAARC barriers to investment while making it possible for the weaker economies to seek protection through rules of fair competition.
Even the Supreme Court of Pakistan did not manifest its dislike of the charge made during the Pakistan Steel Mills case that a part of the capital that sought to buy the steel mill was tainted with Indian money. A free judiciary may not like free trade in Pakistan.
There is nothing more unconvincing in the Pakistani stance than the Kashmir conditionality. That this conditionality was not invoked in relation to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline may actually have alerted India to the real intent of Islamabad.
The real reason goes deeper than that. It is the fear of the nature of change that might come about through the SAARC vision. Why did the peripheral states of South Asia sign the treaty anyway? Today, Pakistan, standing at the threshold of a scary change through trade, may not have signed it.
No matter how well regulated, free trade will destroy all sorts of barriers, change the nature of the state as well as that of the men who live in it. Is Pakistan ready for the change? It would appear that the masses are. The power elite may be hesitant.
If completely unregulated, trade is called smuggling. It has destroyed the notional Durand Line, and today Pakistan is losing territory in its west while in the east a similar thrust into India by Pakistans military has been aborted.
The national security regime is frayed at the edges. It does not live in national action but remains alive in the national mind. As a revisionist state, Pakistan is fast running out of steam.
The power elite is hesitant. This hesitation may be owing to a lack of clarity at a deeper level of consciousness. A lack of intellectual capacity will not allow proper interpretation of internationally popularised slogans like trade corridors.
General Musharraf as an out-of-the-box leader has talked about Pakistan as a trade corridor. He must have picked it up from the economists he talks to. Nothing will destroy the supremacy of the Pakistan army as the transformation of Pakistan into a free-trade hub.
The economist of today is the most subversive philosopher in history since Socrates. Imagine India using trade routes that spread like arteries across Pakistans sacred territory. Pakistan is a corridor of nothing unless India violates it with its manufactures.
The cost of maintaining Pakistans honour has escalated. Pakistan pays into Kashmir an estimated $2.6 billion annually to keep the APHC and the jihadi organisations alive in Held Kashmir. This also includes the infiltration budget. Pakistan gets 800 incursions annually for this money.
Pakistans conflict economy, inclusive of military expenditures, is 10.6 percent of its GDP. This is unsustainable. In the post-Musharraf period, the politicians will find it difficult to defend this kind of spending. Their refusal to go on with it will be non-intellectual as any intellectual reformulation will mean taking on Pakistani nationalism.
Pakistan is fast losing territory and culture to a creed that can only be compared to medieval Muslim conquests. It doesnt feel it is being conquered because it is ideologically prepared for defeat. But, economically, this creeping transformation presages an end to the modern state through a retreat into Hobbesian purgatory.
The politician will breach the India-Pakistan boundary through free trade even though it may be the last one to be breached in the world. (Only North-South Korea and Israel-Syria-Lebanon borders are the last bastions remaining.) He has tried doing it in the 1990s and has been repeatedly toppled because of it.
The real death of Pakistan is coming gradually through the death of its culture. People make fun of enlightenment and moderation because they see the anti-cultural forces within and without the state winning territory on a daily basis. This is black humour rather than rejection of culture.
Free trade and culture go hand in hand. The monoculture of free trade (read globalisation) is cakes and ale compared to the monoculture of Pakistani nationalism as interpreted by the clergy and the army. Those who are scared of it call it Talibanisation.
There is no honour in heroic isolation. The pinnacle of isolation is martyrdom. Free trade may be dishonourable but it avoids death and stops poverty. Nothing is more dishonourable than poverty.
Posted by: John Frum ||
06/01/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
$2.6 billion annually to keep the APHC and the jihadi organisations alive in Held Kashmir. This also includes the infiltration budget. Pakistan gets 800 incursions annually for this money.
Thats $30 million per incursion. I had no idea terrorism was so expensive.
#4
Free trade destroys many orders. It destroys the self-sufficient state.
Yeah, that's why Uncle Kimmies people are so happy, well fed, and the envy of the world. That's why North Korea suffers from tens of millions of illegal Chinese crossing over their border in search of the better life.
#1
I mentioned in the original "fractured" article that captured documents show Saddam had basically contracted a hit on US Forces in Somalia (using al Qaeda precursor groups) and was thus responsible for the Battle of Mogadishu.
Yet one more great reason to have stretched Saddam's neck.
Like many people, Brooke Goldstein couldn't understand why Palestinian Arab terrorists recruited children to become murderers, so she went to the West Bank and asked them.
Hello, my name is Cindy Sheehan and my son Casey Sheehan was killed on April 04, 2004 in Sadr City , Baghdad , Iraq . He was killed when the Republicans still were in control of Congress.
The implication, of course, is that he was killed by vicious Republicans.
Naively, I set off on my tireless campaign calling on Congress to rescind George's authority to wage his war of terror while asking him "for what noble cause" did Casey and thousands of other have to die.
Hatred of oppression is a noble cause in the minds of some of us.
Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, I have lost my optimistic naiveté and have become cynically pessimistic as I see you all caving into "Mr. 28%".
La Pelosi can see Congress' numbers in the tank as well, Cindy.
There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage.
Sure there is: The determination to win the war against a vicious and tenacious enemy.
You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands.
Has Cindy ever considered that there are buckets of blood splattered over the hands of the enemy? To included the blood of her son?
Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new weak as a newborn baby funding authorization bill: "Now, I think the president's policy will begin to unravel."
Certainly they're trying, and not even hiding the fact.
Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred?
When we started this war there was the possibility of Tarawa-like casualties. That possibility still remains. I am willing to see Iraq pounded to a uniform layer of rubble to defeat the enemy -- and to avoid having our own cities destroyed.
How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political "courage" to hold them accountable. If Iraq hasn't unraveled in Ms. Pelosi's mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse?
She's using the inflated numbers so beloved of the left. I haven't seen any data on the average number of Iraqi civilian deaths per day -- the vast majority of which are caused by the insurgency led by al-Qaeda, mind. My feeling is that the figure is something under 100 per day, occasionally spiking higher, sometimes lulling lower. That would produce 36500 civilian dead per year for four years, or 146,000. If someone has the time, maybe he/she/it can come up with a better figure.
Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.
It can in fact get much worse, and much of the credit for that can go to people like Cindy.
Being cynically pessimistic, it seems to me that this new vote to extend the war until the end of September, (and let's face it, on October 1st, you will give him more money after some more theatrics, which you think are fooling the anti-war faction of your party) will feed right into the presidential primary season and you believe that if you just hang on until then, the Democrats will be able to re-take the White House.
Which is the entire point for the Dems. Winning the war never was.
Didn't you see how "well" that worked for John Kerry in 2004 when he played the politics of careful fence sitting and pandering?
Perhaps it was that obvious fence-sitting and pandering that cost him the election. 'Course, it's part and parcel of his being a phoney.
The American electorate are getting disgusted with weaklings who blow where the wind takes them while frittering away our precious lifeblood and borrowing money from our new owners, the Chinese.
No! Not the Yellow Peril! Anything but that!
I knew having a Democratic Congress would make no difference in grassroots action.
It makes it a little more dangerous than when the Publicans are in power, since the Dems have less objection to the naked use of force to silence those who displease them. All for a good cause, of course.
That's why we went to DC when you all were sworn in to tell you that we wanted the troops back from Iraq and BushCo held accountable while you pushed for ethics reform which is quite a hoot... don't' you think?
Gosh. I agree with Cindy Sheehan. Who'da ever thunkit?
We all know that it is affordable for you all to play this game of political mayhem because you have no children in harm's way... let me tell you what it is like: You watch your reluctant soldier march off to a war that neither you nor he agrees with.
"Even if he says he doesn't, you know he does."
Once your soldier leaves the country all you can do is worry. You lie awake at night barking staring at the moon wondering if today will be the day that you get that dreaded knock on your door. You can't concentrate, you can't eat, and your entire life becomes consumed with apprehension while you are waiting for the other shoe to drop. Then, when your worst fears are realized, you begin a life of constant pain, regret, and longing.
"Oh, why? Why wasn't I a better mother?"
Everyday is hard, but then you come up on "special" days...like upcoming Memorial Day. Memorial Day holds double pain for me because, not only are we supposed to honor our fallen troops, but Casey was born on Memorial Day in 1979. It used to be a day of celebration for us and now it is a day of despair. Our needlessly killed soldiers of this war and the past conflict in Vietnam have all left an unnecessary trail of sorrow and deep holes of absence that will never be filled.
So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice. How can you even go to sleep at night or look at yourselves in a mirror? How do you put behind you the screaming mothers on both sides of the conflict? How does the agony you have created escape you? It will never escape me...I can't run far enough or hide well enough to get away from it.
By the end of September, we will be about 80 troops short of another bloody milestone: 4000, and MoveOn.org will hold nationwide candlelight vigils and you all will be busy passing legislation that will snuff the lights out of thousands more human beings.
Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so "other presidents" can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into.
It used to be George Bush's war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.
The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this "two" party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.
We do not condone our government's violent meddling in sovereign countries and we condemn the continued murderous occupation of Iraq .
We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.
Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
Founder and President of
Gold Star Families for Peace.
Founder and Director of
The Camp Casey Peace Institute
Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan
Posted by: Fred ||
06/01/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What in the hell is BushCo? Can't the left stop hating capitalism for even 10 seconds?
#2
Of course they can't....they're The Left - it's what defines them. The next Republican administration had better learn this hard truth: bipartisanship is dead, killed off by the new Democratic party. Forget trying to work them. Govern according to those conservative principles which work time and again, all the while grinding this dispicable incarnation of the Democratic party into dust. They are incapable of changing from within, so outside pressure must be brought in order to convince them to do so. They're every bit as stagnant as your garden variety Moose-Limb fundo.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
06/01/2007 1:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I see a schism in the works, we'll end up with a "New Labor" type of sane Democrat (they do exist) with the "Fruits and Nuts" party on the far left, doing what they do best, losing elections.
#4
All we need to do is stop the democrats from cheating on election day, and they will fade from relevance. Then we'll be left with Bush and other big government RINOs to overcome.
#5
This useless bag is totally irrelevant. She even introduces herself as the mother of Casey Sheehan.
So go Cindy, go join the communist party or something. Say hello to Gus Hall for me.
#6
I'm embarassed to admit I read this to the very end. "Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan"
Cindy Sheehan hasn't even given her son a grave stone.
I am so tired of her belly aching using her brave son's rememberence and crapping all over it. For her to include all of our brave young people in her rants sickens me. My son as I'm sure other young brave honorable soldiers alike are sick of it as well. You watch your reluctant soldier march off to a war that neither you nor he agrees with.
The last time I checked there was no draft, this is a volunteer outfit. Are you pulling this crap out of a hat?
My son joined and is proud to serve our country and I'm proud of him. It's not an easy task here, especially with the likes of you Cindy, spewing your oh woe is me crap everywhere. We don't want brave honorable soldiers with integrity, our group for peace wants more of those righteous bastards marching on our recruitment centers collecting welfare and similarly the self serving types spreading TB. Get a grip here and buck up, life must be worth living, not caving in at the first bump in the road.
Everyday is hard, but then you come up on "special" days...like upcoming Memorial Day
These holidays are still special. The upcoming July 4th holiday here in Colorado will be marked by a memorial being placed for Danny Dietz. I'm sure this will only be one of many celebrations of these sorts. Stop Cindy your lumping me into your load of crap here.
Please, if I see another picture of this bitch crying or trying to look like the victim I'm going to go nuts.
Maybe you and Hugo can have a nice life together.
end rant
Posted by: Jan ||
06/01/2007 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You'd think she was the only person ever to lose a relative in a war.
Your loss is no more painful or significant than anyone else's. My father's family was decimated in WWII, they are mostly buried in Belgium, Canadians didn't even bring them home back then.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
I would like to share with the Rantburg crowd a little tidbit about our congressman who visited us yesterday. We got to ask him a lot of questions and he truly answered them. When asked about the immigration bill, he noted that his office was being flooded with anti-immigration calls/letters/emails. He said before the bill, he got around 40 contacts per day. He is now getting 400+ a day over the bill, mostly anti-immigration contacts and he had to hire two extra temps to sort through it all. He also confirmed that congress is getting hammered with people that want this bill to die. His opinion is that the bill will not pass the Senate because of the backlash.
Dear Democratic Congress,
