<p>Mr. B implied that it was improper for Bush to be on vacation during wartime. I used FDR as a single example of a wartime president who most definitely took vacations. I’m sure that every wartime president has taken vacations. It just points out how silly the anti-Bush arguments are getting when they descend to such lows as decrying his vacation during wartime.</p>
<p>
This is not supported by facts. The country has been well aware of the lack of WMDs since before the election and they still voted for Bush. Even John Kerry said that knowing “then” what he knows “now” that he still would have authorized the war. </p>
<p>The reason for the tailing off of public support is not the lack of WMDs, it is the constant barrage of negative news coming from a not-so-impartial media. It is Vietnam all over again from that perspective.</p>
<p>Dear Funding Father: Good news! I’m back at my keyboard and would like to answer your post that–if I understand it correctly–implies that I cannot possibly be an effective professor of journalism if I have the (in your view) incorrect opinion about the Iraq war. You will be happy to know that I encounter students who share your opinions about the war each time I teach a class. I don’t share my opinions with them in class. But outside of the classroom, I believe that I, too, am entitled to my opinions. As I wrote earlier, I would be the first to admit that they have been highly informed by spending numerous years working in war zones. Does that pass your smell test?</p>
<p>FF: One more question. As a teacher of journalism, it would be greatly appreciated if you shared with me what you consider to be your most reliable and trusted sources of information–newspapers, magazines, websites., etc. Thank you in advance.</p>
<p>Thank you carlmom for your ignorance and personal attack that couldn’t be farther from the truth. You call me uneducated because I disagree with a complete psychopath. Read some of Cindy’s quotes. I posted one earlier. She supports Islamic extremists, and hates capatalism. She hates Israel, and Britian. She isn’t paying her taxes, blames the president for the job she lost (yeah thats really his fault), and her family all has pretty much disowned her. I wonder why?</p>
<p>And about me enlisting, before you think you made some witty remark, I have something to say. First off I’ve heard this argument from these extreme leftists many times. It is the worst arguement I’ve ever heard. We live in a free country and are entitled to do whatever we want. So no politician’s children “should be enlisting.” It is their decision to do what they feel necessary. Not everyone wants to be a soldier even if they believe in the cause. Now to answer your question, no I’m not enlisting, but I am doing ROTC. So you can take your assertions and shut your mouth.</p>
<p>
Ahhh, now we know were the technique of improper quotation comes from. If you did a complete job of research, you would see that I am on record saying that there are valid reasons to be against the war. I also said that I struggled for many months in my own mind debating the pros and cons of the war. If it were a slam dunk (pardon the historical reference to one of the statements that was part of the lead up to the war) I wouldn’t have had to take so long to come to my conclusion. I do not hold anything against someone who looked at the facts and comes to a different conclusion than mine. </p>
<p>No, what I was addressing was your quick ability to label those who you disagreed with as “uneducated fools”. This does not speak highly of your ability to impart open mindedness in the classroom.</p>
<p>FF: Once again, I would respectfully disagree with your statement that it was the negative news coverage that is behind the drop in public support for the Iraq war. And I would also urge you to read (or re-read) a scholarly history of the Vietnam War. I believe that you will discover that the American media was slow to the draw in reporting that that, too, was an unwinnable war. Many scholars believe that it was the draft that turned the tide. Would you agree?</p>
<p>erhaps you should learn the various meanings associated with the double quotes around a word before you use them.</p>
<p>* the “ladies” are the ones who are most vocal about calling for troop withdrawal*</p>
<p>*
who said anything about girlie men? Or even made that inference?*</p>
<p>so I was asking is the person using the term “ladies” to mean people who aren’t necessarily genetically female?</p>
<p>No, I would not agree that it was the draft that turned the tide. Most people who fought in WW II were also drafted. The thing that turned the tide in Vietnam was Walter Cronkite going on air after Tet and claiming that the war was unwinnable. This despite the fact that Tet was a huge military defeat of the Viet Cong and the NVA and that they admitted after the war that they were ready to give up except for the fact that the protestors, spurred on by increased negative media coverage, gave them (the North Vietnamese) great hope. This is a parallel of what is happening today in Iraq.</p>
<p>EK4: I’ll let who ever made the statement about the “ladies” speak for himself, but I doubt that it was a reference to “girlie men”.</p>
<p>Here is another Cindy quote. </p>
<p>“We have no Constitution. Were the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. Its OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. Its not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!”</p>
<p>She also went on to say that her son died for Israel, an unlawful country that shouldn’t exist. She also said she supported Lynne Stewart, a woman who defended terrorists. </p>
<p>How her son Casey died? “Casey Sheehan had re-enlisted in the U.S. Army voluntarily when he was 24-years-old, after serving his first hitch successfully. Casey Sheehan was in fact a hero who received a Bronze Star. He was attached as a mechanic to the artillery division of the 1st U.S. Cavalry in Iraq. When a convoy of soldiers from Caseys unit was attacked in Sadr City by insurgents, Casey volunteered to join a rapid rescue force to get them out. His commanding sergeant told him he did not have to go into combat, because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was quoted telling his officer, I go where my chief goes. He was tragically killed during the rescue attempt.”</p>
<p>Last time I checked we had a constitution, and checks and balances for that matter. We are waging nuclear war in Iraq? Since when? The whole country is contaminated? With freedom? Israel killed her son? Huh? What? Last time I checked that was Iraqi militants. Casey was a brave young man as you can see by his courage and dedication. I think he would be sickened by his mother is doing now.</p>
<p>Cindy Sheehan isn’t just someone against the war in Iraq. She is an anti-Semite who hates capitilism. I can find some of her other quotes about how Bush and Cheney and the government are full of “Jews.” And how the “Jews” caused all of this. How could anyone support this woman?</p>
<p>devils67, one point: Lynne Stewart did more than defend terrorists, she was found guilty of a felony for assisting them. Cindy spoke at a rally defending Lynne’s actions.</p>
<p>Yes, and she also was found to have had ties to funding Hamas and other terrorist organizations. She was even found to have ties with Zarquawi! The very man who was directly responsible for Cindy’s son’s death!</p>
<p>I personally find Cindy Sheehan’s statements about our government to be hysterically hyperbolic and probably stirred by unfathomable grief. I don’t agree with them. Such rhetoric does nothing to aid the call for our immediate withwrawal from Iraq. But I DO believe that she is right about our need to get the H*ll out of there.</p>
<p>Garland – there is a clear connection between Sadam and the invasion of Kuwait, the oil for food scandal, and genocide. That’s plenty.</p>
<p>Agreed, but not for terrorism, esp in the US, which is what you asserted. And there’s plenty evidence that this will now increase.</p>
<p>Nothing you listed has anything to do with terrorism, 9/11 or any other. Bush sr. could have gone forward after Kuwait and genocide, both not present-day issues. He chose not to. the oil for food scandal is unfortunate, but I don’t believe worth losing soldiers over.</p>
<p>And as far as terrorism, I could see the smoke from 9/11 from my town. My kids both live or will soon live in NYC. Believe me, I take it seriously.</p>
<p>
There are plenty of links between Saddam, terrorism and al Qaeda. It’s just that the left focuses on the one point that a link has not been ** proven** between Saddam and 9/11 (but there is even some evidence that points toward this - just not conclusive). Note that this evidence existed even during the Clinton administration (and hence is not “fabricated” by the evil Bush war-mongers). If you look at the indictment of bin Laden after the embassy bombings, one of its points was that he was conspiring with Saddam for development of weapons. It’s almost as if the left is willfully ignoring the evidence of a Saddam/terrorism linkage because it is damaging to their anti-Bush rhetoric.</p>
<p>I too watched the smoke rise from the WTC and know too many people who lost loved ones there and in the airplane in Pennsylvania.</p>
<p>so sad how this was all caused by a negligent Clinton administration. If that administration would have done something when it had the chance we wouldn’t even be debating this whole war. That administration was worthless…the only good thing during Clinton’s administration was the economy and Clinton’s administration played no part in it; it was essentially caused by Reagan and Bush Sr. reforms. Well I can’t say everything was bad about that administration…it did provide lots of funny material that lead to some hilarious Saturday Night Live bits.</p>
<p>Bern, I’m not ready to lay this whole thing on the Clinton administration. Certainly they had their lapses and in hindsight they could have probably nipped it in the bud by being more aggressive with bin Laden. But in hindsight every call is easier to make. That is what is so frustrating with the Bush bashers who continue to beat the “Bush lied” drum. I’m sure no one was more surprised about the lack of WMDs than the Bush team.</p>
<p>Wow, that’s two defenses of Clinton in one week for me. I must be getting soft.</p>