And why would anyone care what Charlie Gibson has to say... especially after being strained through Right Wing Newsbusters???
Strained through the right wing? It's a transcript.
The leftist in the media stopped showing Sheehan as soon as their savior Obama took his oath of office. She is no longer the useful idiot since Bush is out of office. Last I checked, 18 months into the Obama Presidency we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan - Where are the news cameras? Where are the anti-war protesters? Where is Moveon.org? Where are the death statistics? Where are the flag covered coffins? Where is Sean Penn and the rest of the Hollywood idiot peacniks?
Don't be a fool your whole life Box. Stop being such a lemming.
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are. ~ H.L. Mencken
Sheehan followed her conscience in an attempt to end the optional Bush Oil War in Iraq that took her sons life.
Probably wasn't shown on Fixed Noise, so you'd have no way of knowing, but the last combat troops left Iraq a few weeks ago, just as Obama had promised. Troops left behind are not in a combat role and should also leave the disaster that is now Iraq, when the training mission completes.
If Sheehan were to shift her protest to Afghanistan, I would expect her protest to be against Obama.
Sheehan followed her conscience in an attempt to end the optional Bush Oil War in Iraq that took her sons life.
Probably wasn't shown on Fixed Noise, so you'd have no way of knowing, but the last combat troops left Iraq a few weeks ago, just as Obama had promised. Troops left behind are not in a combat role and should also leave the disaster that is now Iraq, when the training mission completes.
If Sheehan were to shift her protest to Afghanistan, I would expect her protest to be against Obama.
Sheehan letter to Washington Examiner.
Quoted Text
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> I read your column about the "anti-war" movement and I can't believe I am saying this, but I mostly agree with you.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> The "anti-war" "left" was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the "anti-Republican War" movement.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the DailyKos, I have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with the Republicans. That's why I left the party in May 2007 and that's why I ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> I have my own radio show, "Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox," and I was out on a four-month book tour promoting the fact that it's not about Democrats or Republicans, but it's about the system.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> Even if I am surrounded by a thousand, or no one, I am still working for peace.
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are. ~ H.L. Mencken
Boo Hoo... sob sob... sniff (whips my nose on my sleeve) I feel so bad for those poor Conservatives... every one keeps blaming them for starting two wars, then losing them both... Iraq was GWB's war... there was no outcry to invade Iraq till GWB pushed his WMD lies, his aluminum tubes lies, his yellow cake mushroom cloud lies...etc etc etc.
If Iraq had been a success, instead of a total disaster, Conservatives would be waving the flag and bragging about how they were victorious in Iraq. Since Iraq was a dismal failure... Conservatives are looking for anyone to blame it on.
Aug. 28, 2010 3:27 PM ET Analysis: NYC mosque helps define guv candidates
MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer
ALBANY (AP) — If the divisive issue of whether a mosque should be built a few blocks from ground zero is resulting in anything positive so far, it has given New York voters some clarity in choosing a candidate for governor.
New Yorkers are watching as Republicans Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino wrap themselves in the flag while opposing the mosque, while Democrat Andrew Cuomo wraps himself in the Constitution to support it.
At a time of pressing issues including the continuing fiscal crisis and high unemployment and when Albany's ethical behavior is a national joke, voters and campaigns are focused on a small building lot a couple blocks from ground zero.
Lazio, in speeches and TV appearances, has increasingly challenged mosque developers. The developers haven't said specifically where their funding will come from, although the fundraising effort began just days ago. Lazio called for an investigation of funding sources even before developers began raising the $100 million they say will be needed.
"They've refused to say whether they will take money from Iran," Lazio said. "Why are they so defiant about building this $100 million mosque at the hallowed location to coincide with the decade anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack in American history?"
Sharif El-Gamal, developer of the project, says in an interview with CBS News that no money will come from Iran, Hamas or extremist groups with "un-American values."
Cuomo has been far less vocal than Lazio about the project. "What are we about, if not religious freedom?" he said July 7 in his first and only comments on the issue.
"I'll stop the mosque," said Paladino. He said he'd try to use the government's power of eminent domain to turn the area into a memorial to those who died and suffered Sept. 11.
Many liberal pundits and the Democrats running the state dismiss opposition to the project as bigotry, and many conservative commentators and Republicans see support as a kind of anti-American appeasement. But New York voters see a more complex issue. For most voters, the mosque issue also has become a factor in their vote for governor, and for a quarter them, it's a major element.
Polls show an increasing majority of voters oppose the proposed Islamic center with a mosque to be built near ground zero, though almost exactly as many New Yorkers — 64 percent — say the developers have a Constitutional right to build it.
And for the quarter of voters for whom the mosque issue will have a major effect on their choice for governor, 92 percent oppose the mosque, according to the Aug. 18 Siena poll................>>>>.................>>>>.....................http://hosted2.ap.org/txdam/f02866e54f4149c297ea6f51ff09935f/Article_2010-08-28-US-Governor's-Race-Mosque-Analysis/id-59d6414f024f46d2bc35876ca988c2ab
Imam behind NYC mosque faces divisions over center
By CRISTIAN SALAZAR, Associated Press Writer – Sat Aug 28, 7:04 pm ET
NEW YORK – Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has long worked to bridge divisions, be they fissures between interfaith husbands and wives or political chasms separating the United States and the Muslim world. The 61-year-old clergyman is now in the midst of a polarizing political, religious and cultural debate over plans for a multistory Islamic center that will feature a mosque, health club and theater about two blocks north of ground zero. He is one of the leaders of the Park51 project, but has largely been absent from the national debate over the implications of building a Muslim house of worship so close to where terrorists killed more than 2,700 people. Though Rauf has said the center, which could cost more than $100 million, would serve as a space for interfaith dialogue, moderate Muslim practice and peaceful prayer, critics say it will create a base for radical, anti-American Islam. Some critics have also asked where the funding for the center might originate and whether it may come from sources linked to Muslim extremists. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, called the backers of the project "radical Islamists." "They're trying to make a case about supremacy" with the center, he said. The American Jewish Committee has said that while Park51's leaders have a right to build their center, they must "fully reveal" their sources of funding and "unconditionally condemn" terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology before they can obtain the organization's support. Those who know Rauf and have worked with him say that he is anything but extreme in his beliefs or intentions. ? "He is one of the really important Muslim leaders in America, working for and working with other religions," said the Rev. James Parks Morton, the former dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine who has known Rauf and his family for more than 30 years. "He's a very, very conciliatory, intellectual guy." During the past few months, Rauf has been in Malaysia, where his family has long-standing ties, and on a State Department-financed goodwill tour of Gulf countries. Through a spokesman and his wife, he declined to speak with The Associated Press in recent weeks. His few interviews lately have been with local Arabic media during his State Department tour. He told the daily Bahrain newspaper Akhbar Al-Khaleej on Aug. 24 that he blamed the news media, in part, for strained relations between Muslims and Americans. Rauf said the media "has succeeded in portraying stereotypical images, focusing on the negative and criticizing the other." With Rauf largely absent from the debate, opponents have scoured past statements and critics portray the imam as tone-deaf to the sensitivities of families who lost relatives on Sept. 11. They argue he should forthrightly condemn Arab political movements such as Hamas that the U.S. government has designated as terrorist organizations. Asked in June by WABC-AM whether he believed the State Department was correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization, Rauf gave a winding response: "I am not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. ... I do not want to be placed ... in a position of ... where I am the target of one side or another."................>>>>............>>>>......................................http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100828/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_mosque_imam
War will ALWAYS BE......and the leaders OF EVERY COUNTRY know this.....they pick something to 'move' the masses and line up every time.......
baaaaaaaaaaa
Oh you have it all wrong. Obama ended the war in Iraq. He has made amends with the muslims and all other countries. The world is at peach now! We can sleep better at night because there are no more terrorists out there. FINALLY Obama has accomplished in just short of 2 years what bush tried to do for 8 years.
No more wars! No more terrorists! No more threats!! It is truly utopian!!! And obama did it!!
An Aug. 27 letter [“Obama wrong about Islam’s place in American history”] purports to correct our president’s recent remarks about the lengthy history of Islamic worship in America. The writer, however, seems far less concerned with historical accuracy than he is with hysterically fanning the fires of prejudice and religious intolerance in present-day America ignited by some politicians for their own electoral gain. He even seeks to resurrect the tired, yes, bigoted innuendo about President Obama’s middle name! In addition, he tries to make the National Day of Prayer the adversary of Ramadan. And, of course, he opposes the proposed construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque in New York City. He seems to want to add more fuel to this fire by adding the ancient hatreds of Christians and Muslims in Spain centuries ago. Jesus intentionally made a Samaritan the hero of his most famous parable because he wanted to promote understanding and good will among those of his day who still harbored a 400-year-old hatred for Samaritans. I wish the letter writer and the host of others, many of whom call themselves “Christians,” who have joined the mass hysteria against Muslims and mosques would instead promote the kind of love and compassion Jesus taught and lived.
Conservatives NEED an enemy... communism, fascism, Marxism, who doesn't matter, but they NEED a defined enemy to survive. Without an evil enemy, they lose their base, with out being able to focus fear at an enemy, their power diminishes, with out an enemy their entire empire crumbles.
There is a Conservative dogma of constant war, constant military/industrial partnership of production/destruction at the expense of the taxpayer.
The Russians... The Chinese... The N Koreans... Saddam... Iran... Nicaragua, Venezuela, who the enemy is makes little difference as long as there is an evil presence to focus the fear & hate. Liberals, Terrorists, almost any religion (except Christian), almost any ethnic group (except white) Atheists, Gays, Hippies... Without an enemy, the Conservative movement will vanish... that's why,for conservatives, war is a good thing.
Thanks for your pearls of wisdom, now I know exactly what the liberal Democrats will need to defend our country, a real inexpensive white flag.
Your post proves my point! Liberal Democrats... Defend our Country!!!
Defend from what? From WHO?
We spend more on national defense than all other countries combined... yet are we safe??? NO! Are Americans secure to travel the world with out fear of 'reprisals'... reprisals due to our foreign policy?
If you look at the world as US vs THEM... and paranoia will govern. Look at the world as a group of nations, who differ but can solve disputes rationally... and everyone, not just America, is more secure.
We destroyed the Iraqi military in a few days... N.Korea would not be so easy, but we would prevail there also... But what did we gain in Iraq? Is the USA or the world any safer with a few hundred thousand Iraqi's dead, along with Saddam, and 4400+American patriots killed? NOPE.
Saddam was no threat to the USA and was contained... yet we are still at just as much risk, (or more) than before the war, from a Sept11th type attack. We are no safer, have gained nothing, and only exchanged a few of the enemy players... not eliminated them, and possibly created more of them.
"If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." For Right Wing nuts... If the only tool in your toolbox is a military strike, everything starts to look like a target city.
No more unnecessary, optional wars like Iraq. No more open ended, conventional wars against a fluid target like AlQaeda.
There is a Conservative dogma of constant war, constant military/industrial partnership of production/destruction at the expense of the taxpayer.
I agree with ya box, and the 20th century proves your point. Just look at the bloodiest wars of the 20th century - WWI, WWII, Vietnam. Who were the Presidents getting America involved in those wars? Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Kennedy/Johnson? All Right Winger Republicans right?
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are. ~ H.L. Mencken
Logged
sob sob... 
