Topic: Bush Administraiton
President Bush yesterday said he felt for Sheehan and the mothers who have lost their sons, as he drove past them on his way to a fundraiser, but wouldn’t be pulling the troops out anytime soon. He said he had “thought long and hard about her position. I’ve heard her position from others: ‘Get out of Iraq now.’ And it would be a mistake for the security of this country.”
I think he ought to listen to what she actually is saying rather than listening to others. She says she wants answers from him about why her son died. You know, all that crazy talk about why W made up all that stuff about WMD to justify an invasion.
Sheehan says she wants him to stop using her son’s death “to justify more killing. The only way he can honor my son’s death is to bring the troops home.” No such luck, there is even talk of increasing troops levels in the “run up” to the constitutional referendum in October. .
[Note: five US troops have been killed in Afghanistan in the last week in the “run up” to the elections there.]
Of course, the right wing goon squad has come out in full force to attack Sheehan’s character. Kristinn Taylor of republic.com says Sheehan “has a political agenda that goes way beyond her son’s death in combat.” Whatever that means. A mother who has given the ultimate sacrifice to the country is now leading some sort of fifth column, to what end? These people have no shame. And what about Michelle Malkin who called Sheehan and the other mothers “grief pimps.” That’s really lovely.
That sort of low blow ought to really resonate with the families of the 42 troops who have died this month so far, especially in Columbus, Cleveland and Philadelphia. Calling mothers of dead soldiers names isn’t helping Bush’s cause. (Please, continue!)
The problem for these douche bags is they are losing the argument, and try as they might, they can’t fight a pissed off mom camped out in front of Bush’s vacation ranch. The advocates of war, pestilence and famine, are losing their appeal.
Bush’s war hits home:
Here in Philadelphia, my neighborhood is reeling from the loss of 3 National Guardsmen in a single attack in Beiji on Tuesday. 2 other local Guards men died last week. People in the Kensington neighborhood, where Sgt. Francis Straub, 24, lived, are not too happy about the war.
The Inquirer quotes one neighbor, Luz Gonzales, as saying; “We’re going to lose all our good men over there. Enough is enough. Kids are dying for what?” Dee McKendry says, “They shouldn’t be there. I’d like to see the president over there with a gun. Sorry, that’s the anger coming out in me.” Straub’s brother said, “they give you a flag and that’s an honor. My brother died an honorable death. But I don’t want a flag. I want my brother.” Quick Michelle, put these grief pimps in their place!
How does Bush explain to these grieving families and friends that we’re losing our best and bravest to protect people like Iraqi president Jalal Talibani who won’t even shake a woman’s hand because the Koran forbids it?
Or Ahmad Chalabi, who is teaming up with Muqtada al-Sadr, to enshrine Shiite oil rights in the Iraqi constitution? And you would sacrifice your loved ones for Kurdish autonomy and rule over Kirkuk, right?
But Bush says, don’t worry, “The important thing for the American people to know is we’re making progress.” (Sheehan really wants to talk to this guy?) Any talk about pulling out before the mission is accomplished (Again) “would betray the Iraqis.” Oh, yes, wouldn’t want to turn our backs on Abdul Aziz al Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq or His Hounarable Eminence Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani.
[Chicago Tribune]Besides, if we leave now, there’ll be a blood bath! So, the Baghdad morgue hit a new record of 1,100 corpses in July, up from 879 in June, but things could get worse, right? This isn’t even counting the bodies of those killed by suicide bombings. These are just the Iraqis killed by gunshots from Iraqi troops, US troops and other random causes. And this is just the Baghdad morgue. What about Mosul and Basra?
More on the Curt Weldon front.
[PI]It appears that the 9/11 commission did know of the intelligence on Mohamed Atta provided by the Special Operations team Able Danger but decided not to put it in its report on the 9/11 attacks because, according to Al Felzenberg, spokesperson for the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, the information didn’t match what the commission knew about Atta’s whereabouts at the time.
Why they said they didn’t know about Able Danger and Atta the other day is a bit confusing. Felzenberg says at a July 2004 meeting in Afghanistan the commission had been told of Able Danger but not about Atta. Now, they’re searching their records to see if they had been told about Atta.
In any case, the ruckus being stirred up by Weldon is really much to do about nothing. What difference would it have made whether the pentagon had told the FBI about Atta in 2000 or not? The FBI did know that there were young Muslims taking flight lessons around the country learning how to fly but not land; that should have been a pretty big tip off, but didn’t do anything about it. Who is to say they would have done any better with this information?
Rest assured this story isn’t going away, because there are two congressional commissions investigating this and now Senator Pat Roberts is getting involved. Roberts never one to miss an opportunity to get his face on the TV will no doubt milk this for all its worth.