Cindy Sheehan's speech at SF State Univ.

[Alex]

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.

But when Bush says it, it becomes a lie...

What does this show? Nothing. You think that because you can show liberals wanted this war that I will back down from my position? There is more to the country than liberal and conservative.

Further more, there is a very serious flaw in this response. George Bush was the one who lead all Americans to believe that we needed to go to war with Iraq. The people listed above were going by what the Bush Administration lead them to believe. Of course when a president says we need to invade a country the rest of the country will believe him. That is a trust that Bush violated. The people you listed were only going by what they were told by a deceptive administration.

 

[vandree]

Supporting Cindy doesn't mean you have to agree with everything she says. I support her because I want to know the answer to the question she wants to ask Bush.

One after the other all the reasons we have been given for the war turned out to be lies, so I think he owes it to everybody to answer the question "What is the noble cause soldiers are dying for?"

 

[cnredd]

"Aiding and abetting"? Prove this. Not that it means anything.

This is from A soldier's blog...one who is in Iraq RIGHT NOW...

Don’t Speak For Me, Cindy Blogged in Military Perspective by CJ Thursday August 18, 2005

Move America Forward, quickly becoming my favorite group in the world, though still trailing AAP (what’s up with the message boards), is mobilizing again. This time, their target is the protesters in Crawford, Texas. They are determined not to make this war “another Vietnam.” With people like this watching my back at home, it makes my job elsewhere a whole lot easier.
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/?cat=5


You & I can argue until were blue whether protesters help or hurt the soldiers...but hearing it directly from one of the soldiers SHOULD give you an idea...

My comment to Cindy Al-Sheehani...It's easy to exercise one's right to free speech...It's should also be easy to know when NOT to exercise that right...

 

[Hoot]

I'm asking this question in all seriousness...

What exactly about Cindy's speech is so upsetting to those of you on the 'right?'

The fact that she used foul language?

The fact that the U.S. is using depleted uranium in our weapons systems in Iraq? The fact that this depleted uranium is not only poisoning the country but is poisoning our own soldiers, and will probably become the 'agent-orange' of Iraq in future years? ( do a search on "depleted uranium in Iraq" if you don't believe me, and look at the hits you'll get)

I forget her name, but someone who works in the White House administration has said that even Bush supports Cindy's right to protest.

So, what's the problem?

 

[cnredd]

The people you listed were only going by what they were told by a deceptive administration.

I only put the quotes you saw instead of some others was because they were the most recent and because of space...but since you say they were told things by a "deceptive administration", let's go back a little further, shall we?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm

 

[Navy Pride]

You don't see any democratic politicians rallying behind Sheehan.......Even the liberals like Kerry and Kennedy have been silenc........There is a reason for that..........They know this woman has gone off the deep end with her raving accusations..........Only the radical far left of moveon.org and the Bush Haters are with her.........

That says volumes...........

 

[Navy Pride]

If you liberals don't believe take a minute and read the first post in this thread........Read the wild ravings obscene comments she made........

She rally needs to seek professional help and I hope she gets it.....

 

[BWG]

You don't see any democratic politicians rallying behind Sheehan.......Even the liberals like Kerry and Kennedy have been silenc........There is a reason for that..........They know this woman has gone off the deep end with her raving accusations..........Only the radical far left of moveon.org and the Bush Haters are with her.........

That says volumes...........

I don't agree with a whole lot of your views, but I do believe you got this one right.

That being said, why is the conservative media (and a lot of people on this site) trying to portray her as a spokeswoman for the liberal leaning types? As well as Michael Moore, moveon..etc. Did any of these people move to K street and influence legislation? I don't think Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter speak for you and they regurgitate their crap everyday! I just ignore or moveover them, it's really not hard to do.

Now, I think she has a right to her protest, as long as she does it in a legal manner.

 

[Alex]

This is from A soldier's blog...one who is in Iraq RIGHT NOW...

Don’t Speak For Me, Cindy Blogged in Military Perspective by CJ Thursday August 18, 2005

Move America Forward, quickly becoming my favorite group in the world, though still trailing AAP (what’s up with the message boards), is mobilizing again. This time, their target is the protesters in Crawford, Texas. They are determined not to make this war “another Vietnam.” With people like this watching my back at home, it makes my job elsewhere a whole lot easier.
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/?cat=5


You & I can argue until were blue whether protesters help or hurt the soldiers...but hearing it directly from one of the soldiers SHOULD give you an idea...

My comment to Cindy Al-Sheehani...It's easy to exercise one's right to free speech...It's should also be easy to know when NOT to exercise that right...

This does not respond to my post. How does it prove that a "lawyer who was aiding and abetting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman"? You are avoiding the question.

 

[Alex]

I only put the quotes you saw instead of some others was because they were the most recent and because of space...but since you say they were told things by a "deceptive administration", let's go back a little further, shall we?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm

Again, what does this prove? Nothing. Bush abused his authority as president to go to war when it was not needed for the reasons he gave.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
We ALL support her right to speak but just because you have a RIGHT to speak does not make what you speak RIGHT. This knee-jerk reponse that the left always puts up is so bogus but it does demonstrate that you can't defend what she says.

So do you support what she says or not, do you agree with what she says? Her First Amendment rights are not an issue.

Right and wrong are subjective.

No it is quite objective, do you agree with her or not?

It is right for Sheehan to say what she is saying

So you do agree with her? You support her speaking in support of the terrorist and thier supporters?

and of course some would find it wrong.

But not you?

The bottom line is, she has the right to say it as she wishes.

bottom line is that is not an issue.

 

[Stinger]

"Aiding and abetting"? Prove this. Not that it means anything.

She was speaking in support of the lawyer who was covicted of aiding and abetting the terrorist who attacked us. This is not new and not unknown, it is not a point of contention.

 

[Stinger]

Again, what does this prove? Nothing. Bush abused his authority as president to go to war when it was not needed for the reasons he gave.

It proves what the world believed. The danger Saddam was and the action that was needed. Which WAS fully justified and authorized for the exact reasons he gave.

 

[cnredd]

I don't agree with a whole lot of your views, but I do believe you got this one right.

That being said, why is the conservative media (and a lot of people on this site) trying to portray her as a spokeswoman for the liberal leaning types? As well as Michael Moore, moveon..etc. Did any of these people move to K street and influence legislation? I don't think Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter speak for you and they regurgitate their crap everyday! I just ignore or moveover them, it's really not hard to do.

Now, I think she has a right to her protest, as long as she does it in a legal manner.

Nobody here questioning Cindy Al-Sheehani's right to protest...Read up on Voltaire...

We(Some?Many?) are questioning her MOTIVES...She is FAR from the spokesperson for the "liberal leaning types"...She is a PAWN of these organizations...

If this were a personal issue, she would tell them to go fly a kite, but instead she allows them to USE her as an advocate, which means the issue, for her, has little to do with her son, who would be telling her to knock it off if he were still with us.

Read my sig...