MoxieGrrrl.com: I Don't Know Him, But He Rocks

Friday, August 12, 2005

I Don't Know Him, But He Rocks

This individual came by my site and left a lengthy comment in my Cindy Sheehan Comment Extravaganza. He said a lot of things that I have tried to say through my blog, albeit curse-laden and incomprehensible. I'm no professional writer, I just type what's going on in my head at the moment.

I hope he doesn't mind that I reprint his comment. I hope that Bush-backers will take a minute or two to read what this former military man has to say, perhaps leave a comment on what you think about his words. Is he a peacenik hippie with nothing better to do, or could he have made a few very valid points? Here it is...

August 13, 2005 12:04 AM
S.E.A.L. said...: One of the members of the military says:

"But what you should do is support us, not bash us. For whether you like it or not, I am prepared to give my life for this country and our way of life. (Another great thing about America, freedom to choose...) So that my children and their children can have the opportunity to live in a society where they can speak out and not fear being taken away in the night and never be seen again. The opportunity to dream and accomplish all that their hard work will allow them to accomplish. The freedom to believe what they choose to believe and worship how they choose to worship. That is America, and that is why I proudly serve.

Why do you military types and self-styled conservaties continue to make that stupid statement? We all support our military when they're in combat. It's the people who caused the combat that we don't support. And, we don't bash, we tell the truth, which is something that is ignored on the neocon side.

Being willing to give your life for your country is admirable, but not unique. I was a 20 year SEAL, three Purple hearts, the Navy Cross, etc. Ergo, I'm not impressed. Also, I'm not stupid enough to believe that participating in the criminal act of invading a sovereign nation that posed no threat to my country, killing helpless civilians and children, and causing mass destrution of that nation's infastruture can in any way be construed as serving my "country" or being worth dying for. You and I both know that the evidence this administration presented to Congress to gain permission and to the world as justification for a preemtive attack on Iraq was a lie. Not bad intelligence or misinformation, but a deliberate falsification and misrepresentation of it. That has been established beyond any doubt. The difference between us is that you don't want to believe the reality of it and that scares us.

People who will deceive themselves are very scary people because they will go to any length to justify imposing their will upon others. The end justifies the means. And that is the most dangerous kind of bullshit there is.

That's why the American people's support for this so-called "war" has steadly diminished. It isn't the military that they don't support, it's the war criminals who have shamed us as a nation that they no longer believe nor support. The realization has hit home that Iraq is not a war, it's a war crime that our "elected" leaders have commited in our name!

And, something that is totally overlooked is that this is the second time we have done this. Remember Panama? Who was president when we invaded that country and took out it's leader based upon trumped up BS? Uhuh, Bush the First!

As a military person, your duty is to protect this contry from those who present a clear and present danger by maintaining the necessary retalitory capability to deter any aggression or to destroy those foolish enough to actually attack us. How can you profess such pride when you have yet to perfom that duty. Where is the man identified as responsible for 9/11? He sure as hell isn't in Iraq!

We constantly hear of our technological ability to satelite track, identify, and guide our weapons with pinpoint accuracy. It's so amazing we can hit an ant sitting on a ball of cotton in a basement in Queens, New York but we can't locate a seven foot tall man dragging a dialysis machine behind him in a stone age desert environment? Every time we have asked Bush why he hasn't caught bin Laden, Bush says he's been hiden. He has actually said he isn't concerned with him.

Just what is it you're so proud of? The fact that, according to the most dependable and realistic estimates, we have killed approximately 100,000 Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11 or the fact that we've deliberately allowed the peson responsible to run free? You have no idea how ridiculous this is to me, one who is specifically trained and experienced in counter terrorism. Give me two SEAL teams and full authority and I will bring you bin Laden's head (attached or not) within 30-60 days. Then or now.

You're not accomplishing anything you espouse in your prerecorded and practiced Bush administration rhetoric. You're aiding and abeting what history will prove as the fuse that lit the great world war between christians and muslims unless the enough of us come to our senses and stop it. That is what Cindy Sheehan symbolizes!

29 Comments:

Human said...: Peace to you and yours S.E.A.L.

Can you come on down to DC in Sept.? Camp Casey will most likely bivvy there then. Let us back up Cindy and all the other parents who have lost their children to the Lie and the ones who I fear for. Also if you don't know it is easy to start your own blog. You write well and I think you should do so. Just click on any of the Highlighted names like mine and in the upper right is create your own blog link. I know your not stupid as a S.E.A.L. you could hardly be. So the direction is there if you need it.
Also you may want to check this guy out - www.powderburns.org
Your fellow Human; August 13, 2005 12:09 AM
Tracey said...: Incredible post! Thanks for highlighting it for everyone to see without having to wade through all the venom in that aol-linked post.

And, um, Human...you might want to re-read your comment. I realize that it's just misplaced punctuation (forgetting the period between "stupid" and "as"), but as it is now, it reads as a bit of an insult. Is it possible to edit comments?; August 13, 2005 10:48 AM
MoxieGrrrl said...: I've never been able to edit comments - I think blogger blocks that.; August 13, 2005 10:57 AM
Human said...: Peace to you and yours Tracey. Thank you for pointing that out. The last person I would want to offend is a S.E.A.L.. I don't have a death wish. Anyways the line should have been written - I know you're not stupid. As a S.E.A.L. you could hardly be. Now I know that is still bad grammar, however it is pretty good for a 7th grade education. I have been told to use WORD tocorrect my spelling. I need to do that more often, obviously. I do use double entrees when jousting with the wrong side and when they obviously fail to get it, I use that against them. This was not a case of that.
A special message to the kids out there - Don't drop out of school. When grown up you will have to communicate with your peers in a adult like manner. Or you could find yourself waking up, hanging upside down by your feet in your own backyard. Put there in the middle of the night by a S.E.A.L.; August 13, 2005 12:22 PM
JD Allen said...: Earlier this summer, I was at one of my grandson's little league games. It was late afternoon, and the sun was in my face pretty bad, so I got a cap out of my truck to shade my eyes. (Which is what they were invented for, you know.) The only cap I had in there was an old USMC utility cover my son got me when he was in the Corps. My old, plain green ones are long gone, worn out and discarded, a bit like myself.

Very soon after I returned to the sidelines to watch the game, one of the other watchers spoke to me, "Nice Marine hat. I was in Recon in '68. Blah-blah-blah."

I didn't call him on it, but he was a stone liar. I don't believe that there ever was anybody that made it through MCRD that would say "Marine hat". If you don't know what MCRD is, you weren't there, either.

Point is, it's pretty easy to say, "I was a SEAL." "I was a Recon Marine." "I was a green beret." Somehow, not many bullshitters ever claim to have been in supply, etc., which made up 90% of the people in the Vietnam, and most other, wars.; August 13, 2005 12:32 PM
Greg Mills said...: I was a Webelo. No one can take that from me. Not even the Webelos For Truth.; August 13, 2005 12:49 PM
SheaNC said...: I wonder if I am the only one who feels that unqualified "support" of the troops is a bad thing. I mean, why does one "support the troops" anyway? Because they are soldiers? Because they are on our side? Because it would be unpatriotic not to do so?

If we support troops for selflessly defending their country, shouldn't we support troops from every country? Even our enemies' troops?

Or, should we only lend our support to troops whose motives we find agreeable? That's what I do. I can support troops who want to defend the United States. I can kinda/sorta support the troops who enlisted for education and employment. But I refuse to support troops who are deliberate agents of the neocon empire, and quite frankly, anyone who has joined the military in the last few years either falls into that category, or is so ignorant of current events that they should not be handling weapons.; August 13, 2005 6:10 PM
Timmer said...: I respect the views of fellow veterans, but can't say that this fellow sounds like ANY that I know in his views...and I know a whole bunch. Sorry, but I have some doubts on this one.

On the SHEEHAN thing.

Even her own family (LOTS of them) are embarrassed by her actions. Here is what THEY had to say in a letter for Matt Drudge to present to the public:

"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

This from FrontPageMagazine.com:
"...as a mechanic in the 1st battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, Casey did not have to go into the battle that claimed his life. When some of his fellow soldiers encountered resistance, he and others in his unit chose to go into combat to save his friends."

"Cindy Sheehan herself recounted it this way: "[T]he sergeant said, "Sheehan, you don't have to go," because my son was a mechanic. And Casey said, "Where my chief goes, I go."""

Sheehan wants to ask the President "Why did you kill my son?" I have a better question for Her... "Why are YOU killing more of our young men and women by emboldening the Enemy?" Aljazeera is already eating this stuff up, and THAT is where I draw the line on my sympathy.; August 13, 2005 7:10 PM
Chazmonk said...: timmer,

enough with the "emboldening" the enemy bullshit. These people are going to do what the do no matter what. Blaming those of us that think this "war" is just an excuse for a president to show his balls to his constituents, is a load of huey. If this was actually a war where our president didn't lie to get into, more people would be behind it. But when the MAJORITY of Americans think it was wrong, then they have merit.

My idea is to send eveyone of fighting age who thinks Bush is right and doing a fantastic job over to Iraq. That would change some people's tunes.

Chazmonk; August 13, 2005 8:07 PM
MoxieGrrrl said...: timmer, first of all, who cares what her in-laws think of her? They are staunch Bush supporters, of COURSE they don't agree with what she's doing. And besides, I would think it a rare family that doesn't disagree with each other on certain things, particularly politics.

And I agree with Chazmonk, this whole riling up the enemy is getting really old. They don't need riling up, they already have their reasons.; August 13, 2005 8:54 PM
MoxieGrrrl said...: S.E.A.L. said...

Moxie, this is something everyone should read if they really want to understand:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

Wow, powerful read.; August 13, 2005 8:58 PM
Anonymous said...: I was not only in Vietnam, Moxie, but I was "in the shit" as well. At the battle of Khe San I called an air strike in on my own battalion. No good reason for it, just shitz and giggles.

The best way you civilians can support us is by sporting a Made in China "we support our troops" decal from Wal-mart!; August 14, 2005 1:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I was not only in Vietnam, Moxie, but I was "in the shit" as well. At the battle of Khe San I called an air strike in on my own battalion. No good reason for it, just shitz and giggles.

The best way you civilians can support us is by sporting a Made in China "we support our troops" decal from Wal-mart!; August 14, 2005 1:55 AM
Rambler Joe Snitty said...: Thanks for the link, S.E.A.L.

That article reminded me of something that I read in Esquire a few years ago.

I was able to track it down as a top result with the search "Esquire + New + World + Order". Go figure.

Anyway, here's the article, straight from the hawk's mouth, as it were.; August 14, 2005 12:18 PM
S.E.A.L. said...: JD Allen said...
Point is, it's pretty easy to say, "I was a SEAL." "I was a Recon Marine." "I was a green beret." Somehow, not many bullshitters ever claim to have been in supply, etc., which made up 90% of the people in the Vietnam, and most other, wars.

Timmer said...
I respect the views of fellow veterans, but can't say that this fellow sounds like ANY that I know in his views...and I know a whole bunch. Sorry, but I have some doubts on this one.

My primary SN is EBullar183@aol.com. Why don't you two contact me for verification if you have doubts before you start running off at the keyboard to once again demonstrate the conservative practice of avoiding the factual truth presented by the diversion of casting aspersions upon the writer. Instead of rebutting the statements from the liberal view, you and others of the conservative kilt always attack the writer on a personal level to cast doubt upon their credibility or character to divert the attention from the real issue. From the Whitehouse down through the ranks, conservative promoters have developed this method of diversion into an art form. When it was pointed out that Bush was a previledged little draft dodging cokehead that couldn't even show up for flying lessons 6,000 miles away from the fighting, you wrapped him in the flag with Top Gun photo ops on the flight deck and spent millions on liars to denigrate the other candidate who vollunteered, fought, and was wounded in action. It worked then but the people have become hip to the charade.

You can no longer avoid the truth and bury the lies by screaming patriotism and pointing at God. Just because I was in the military doesn't I have to agree with the commander in chief and I'm not unpatriotic for pointing out the truth. I, like all other members of the armed forces pledged to protect and defend my nation and it's people. None of us pledged to crusade for the second coming of Bush to destroy Saddam and Gotmoreoil. None of us pledged to spread Chrisianity throughout the world. None of us pledged to force other nations to adopt democratic forms of government. Sure as hell, none of us pledged to murder children. And, before you jump in with, "we got rid of the bad guy and made it better for the Iraqi people," go take a good look at Iraq now as compared to the days before we got there and compare Sadaam's body count to Bush's. If you want to jump on those actually responsible for not supporting our troops, why don't you go after the assholes who still can't provide the proper body armor and vehicles they need over there?

People are dying and being maimed everyday in Iraq, not because of "terrorists" but because we are there. Here's a little tibit from someone actually educated and experienced with the Middle East: Even if, by some miracle, we are able to establish a stable government in Iraq with it's own police force, the minute we leave there will be anarchy and a blood bath that will result in the meanest son-of-a-bith there rising to power with more hatred for the US than we can imagine. Whether we leave today or ten years from today, it will be the same. The reality is that Bush has us quagmired in a situation we can never totally walk away from. Those people are going to fight just as hard to get us out of their country as I would to get them out of ours.

Before you try to cast doubt upon my military service, let's hear about all your combat and contributions. Let's trot around the globe and take a look at all the blood I left in a variety of places - then you show me yours! And, before you make an issue of how Cindy Sheehans relatives feel about what she is doing, or further attempt to divert attention from her real issue with snide little playground remarks about the way she looks or the evolution of her thinking, how about standing up like adults and deal with her real issue which is the right of every American to hold their government and it's leaders accountable. She just happpens to be the one standing in the ditch watching Ronnie's co-star in "BONZO GOES TO COLLEGE" drive on by to a thank you for the tax cuts and extra profits for us rich GOP party fundraiser. But here's a news flash for ya - there are millions of us standing behind her wanting the same answers.

You're attacking in the wrong direction. The enemy of America is not in Iraq, he's in the Whitehouse and any true patriot would see that.; August 14, 2005 5:35 PM
MoxieGrrrl said...: There goes S.E.A.L. getting me all hot n' bothered again...

Anon said: "The best way you civilians can support us is by sporting a Made in China "we support our troops" decal from Wal-mart!"

Can I not do that? I hate those fucking magnets. I hate them with a passion.; August 14, 2005 5:47 PM
Timmer said...: Seal,

I did not call you a liar - I just gave my honest opinion in that you DON'T sound like any other veteran I know...whether a SEAL or a friggin' Mess Chief.

And yes, I have my doubts. Your statement of being able to take a few teams in to Afghanistan and take out Bin Laden within a few weeks might sound credible to these folks...but it's all bullshit to me (and to you - if you are being honest).

You sound like a disgruntled former vet - I respect that (of itself), but don't try to bullshit the "civvies" with this other stuff. You might make Moxie hot, but your ranting about the "spread of christianity around the world" and the "blood you left" are childish and, in my view, ridiculous. Maybe you'd like to brag about how many ears you collected? Puh-lease.

Sheehan can do whatever she wants - we gave her that freedom with our service. But THE SECOND I saw her listed under Al Jazeera programming, that was it for my sympathy. Gone.

Bush is not your enemy - he is your President. You don't like it, get out some more vote next time around. As a SEAL, I would like to think that you were relieved that John Kerry didn't win the election...maybe he could trump up some cool war stories for you?

Lastly, regardless of your leftist views and what you seem to be dong with them, thanks for your service. Really.; August 14, 2005 10:27 PM
pretty shaved ape said...: timmer, al jazeera is, for all intents and purposes, the exact same thing as fox news. the only difference is what side of the fence they are yelling from. cindy sheehan is news and they cover news. the fact that she has the guts to stand in front of the cameras and speak her opposition to the policy of the bush administration is both noble and risky. from what i've seen on numerous blogs and in comment after comment, is a level of animosity bordering on hatred. mr. bush will spend the rest of his days protected by a detail of secret service, ms. sheehan has no such luxury. regardless of the outcome of her efforts she will always be considered an enemy by a certain virulent sort of people and i fear for her safety. the president has teams of highly skilled writers and spin doctors crafting his statements and managing his appearances. she is camped in a scalding hot texas ditch, speaking from her heart. mr.bush evinces a barely functional use of the language. cindy sheehan has proven eloquent, natural and charismatic. if for no other reason, than that she is opening american eyes to the arrogance and dishonesty of the government's foreign policy, she should be commended. i believe that she loves her country enough to risk the scorn of her fellows, to speak the truth as she sees it. last week it could have been argued that she was being used by the left, this week she is taking the lead on the left and others are riding her coat tails. on the other hand george bush is being used by haliburton, big oil, big pharma, big religion and a host of sinister boardroom types. she wants to bring the troops home, bush wants to "stay the course" and "bring 'em on". he's a war president? more like a vacation president. he's willing to send thousands of young americans to face their mortality but he is hiding from a grieving mother. america would be a much better place if george bush had even a small fraction of the courage that cindy sheehan has shown.; August 15, 2005 1:19 AM
Greg Mills said...: "we gave her that freedom with our service."

I'm going to chalk that one up to the Constitution.; August 15, 2005 11:55 AM
S.E.A.L. said...: Disgruntled? That's the defense in sexual harrasment suits. While it's true our country is being screwed, I'm not the one bending over to service a gang of war profiteers with blind faith in the chain of command and the "American way." Bush isn't my president. I don't believe for one instant that he was actually "elected." But, instead of trapising off into one of your diversions, let someone who spent years actually involved with the Middle East on a variety of levels explain something.

So far this month,hundreds of Iraqis and U.S. troops have been killed by an Iraqi insurgency that, even after two and one-half years, continues to intensify. The public face of the Bush administration created the expectation that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. When that proved wrong, they then promised that elections would fatally undermine the rebel cause. As if they are clueless as to the composition of this virulent enemy they now place our hope for peace upon the construction of an Iraqi Constitution. They dangle one carrot after another with costumed posturing to bolster support for something they knew in the beginning would never come to pass.

U.S. guerrilla warfare experts wring their hands lamenting that the insurgents' motives and actions are simply baffling. However, it clearly makes sense to the people who are doing it. And that more than anything else tells us how little Americans understand the region. However, the war profiting neocons surrounding Bush do understand.

What they wilfully ignore is that Iraq is the historical center of the Arab world. Thousands of years of a history written in conflict and bloodshed with the ebb and flow of dictatorial regime changes and holy wars. What has now occurred in the region is that elements from two formerly implacably opposed forces - secular pan-Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism - have come to be unified, at least temporarily, in their hatred of the U.S. and it's irreverent occupation of the holy center of the Arab world. That foreboding alliance is a direct consequence of a White House policy based on deliberate ignorance of history.

To avenge the 9/11 attack by some of the region's Muslim fanatics, led by Osama bin Laden, President Bush lashed out at the secular regime of Saddam Hussein despite two crucial facts: There was no evidence linking Hussein with Bin Laden, and the two were sworn enemies. As the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair seven months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush was obsessed with overthrowing Hussein, and so "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." That's when the great WMD hoax was launched. But "the case was thin," as summarized in the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was highly questionable and certainly less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Nevertheless, thousands of lives and billions of taxpayers dollars have been spent deposing a defanged dictatorship that posed no immediate threat to the U.S., creating a terrorist jungle in its place. We can describe the situation in Iraq today as "mission accomplished" only if our goal was to unite fanatical Islamic jihadis with their longtime enemies, the secular nationalist Baathists. But that was the admistration's goal!

There is no profit in quickly capturing bin Laden and taking over a country whose major industry is illegal opiates. There is great profit in a long drawn out conflit in a country sitting on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

A major irony in this tragedy is that most of the foreign terrorists wreaking mayhem there come from Saudi Arabia, a nation the U.S., via the Bush family, has been in the oil tank with for many years and who we protected from Hussein's army in the Persian Gulf War. Saudi Arabia, also, was the country of origin of Bin Laden and 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 bombers.

In order for Americans to begin to understand the insurgency, the Bush neocons would have to concede that their adventure in nation-building has turned U.S. occupied Iraq into a deeply alluring target for anti-American rage among Islamic fundamentalists. They would have to admit that this Pandora's box, once opened, cannot be shut by shoving a few ex-Baathists into the new Baghdad government, as proposed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her recent photo-op visit. The fact remains that the now united disparate elements of the Iraqi insurgency do agree on one thing: their desire to drive the U.S. military out. Thus, the U.S. presence is the fuel for the conflagration it claims to be stamping out. However, this would be an admission of their true agenda.

But for some reason, too many Americans love self deception. Instead of accepting that the occupation is the chief recruiting tool for both would-be martyrs and less-suicidal nationalist fighters, there is still widespread faith and belief that the heavy-handed U.S. presence is the key to restoring order. Many leaders of both political parties have bought into the fantasy that the January elections proved that a stable, democratic Iraq that's friendly to the U.S. is just around the corner.

As usual, they are wrong.

Foreign jihadis will keep coming across Iraq's porous borders in search of a bloody martyrs' heaven. Sunni Iraqis will keep fighting for the wealth and power they believe is their birthright. and Shiite radicals such as cleric Muqtada Sadr, popular with Iraq's teeming poor, will continue to denounce the U.S. presence.

The answer is to leave the Iraqis to control their own affairs, rather than pretending to govern from half-empty legislative meetings in the isolated locked-down Green Zone in Baghdad. The U.S. is the problem, rather than the solution. The fighting will never end as long as we are there. And, yes, it will continue after we are gone. It has always been that way and will never change, at least not in our lifetime.

Support Ciny Sheehan! Just say no to the war profiteers and get us out of Iraq!; August 15, 2005 12:19 PM
MoxieGrrrl said...: Wow timmer, your condecension towards S.E.A.L. doesn't really do much to endear yourself - not like endearing yourself is a goal, but it doesn't help your case if you are trying to make a valid point. Hell, I have no goal of endearing myself to anyone... I just get the stuff rolling around in my head out on this blog and if someone likes it, that's great. If not, oh well.

S.E.A.L., you sounds quite knowledgable about the middle east views - all of which I've heard, in bits and pieces, elsewhere, but you've managed to string it all together much more eloquently than I can.

Call me a nut, but I'm much more about the intuition. I know they're up to no good because I feel it in my gut, like a wife who knows hubby's not really "working late because of a big project". And every day I read more and more about how I am right... Downing Street Memos, the Plame scandal, Bush's ever-changing reasons for being in Iraq at all... This isn't all just created out of someone's conspiracy-laden imagination, yet the right continues to bury their heads in the sand (or up Bush's ass) because it's easier to live their own lives and be led by a nutjob than to take a stand against the daily slaughter of someone else's children.; August 15, 2005 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...: i don't understand why it surprises and offends people that americans have differences of opinion. even americans who have served in the military, perhaps side by side, could have differing opinions. as americans, we have many freedoms afforded to us, including the freedom to express ourselves. but it is our free will that helps us to determine what is right and what is wrong. people, we are ALL on the same side here. (actually, by "we", i mean everyone posting on this blog site, and the majority of average americans. i am not speaking of those in power. they have an agenda, not a side.) we all want the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and we all feel that it is most likely that we will be able to pursue our rights to the fullest if there is world peace (or something as close to it as we can get). some of us feel that it is best to stay in iraq, some feel it is best that we leave. some feel that we are being manipulated, some do not. whatever our feelings are, please, let us stop shitting all over each other. it is not productive, and it will not help ANYONE'S cause. by maligning a fellow blogger, you are dodging the issue. you can disagree with a person's politics or opinions and back them up, but by denigrading their character, you pit yourself maliciously against those whom the military is "protecting and defending" just as they are protecting and defending you. remember we are all working for the same cause.
some may demand to know if i have served in the military, if i have a particular party affiliation, or some other useless piece of my personal history before giving any credence to what i have said. the only information that is relevant here is that i am an american and i love my country and the freedoms my citizenship affords me. that love supersedes the administration (whether or not i agree with their actions) and the current state of affairs in this world. i love my fellow americans, even the ones who i vehemently disagree with or even dislike on a personal level. we are all bound to each other, much like a family, through our collective and fierce love for our country and what she represents. let's all think about that before pointing the finger at someone and shouting that they and their opinions are to blame for what is going on. we talk about the electoral process and how it is responsible for our current state of affairs. like it or not, we do need to rely on it (for now at least) to put people in office. but that doesn't mean, and should NEVER mean, that if we don't like what goes on in the mean time that we should remain quiet. in fact, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to yell as loudly as we can our support or our dissent for our elected officials ACTIONS AND INACTIONS THROUGHOUT their ENTIRE terms, not just when elections are coming or we don't like something. THAT is what it means to be an american. vote on election day, certainly, and get everyone you can to vote as well. but do not forget that you have a voice in the mean time. and use it where it is useful, not to trash a fellow american who has just as much to gain or lose as you do by what is going on.

and let's all give moxie a big HIGH FIVE for giving us the ability to say what we think and not taking it personally. it takes a BIG PERSON to not take some of these things personally. in doing so, she maintains the ability to keep her voice strong, not getting caught up in everyone else's issues. cheers, mox!

i am posting as anonymous b/c i am on vacation and have forgotten my password, but you can check me out on previous postings. i am...

m; August 15, 2005 3:40 PM
MoxieGrrrl said...: Aww, smooches m :); August 15, 2005 5:10 PM
Timmer said...: SEAL,

I'll give you this much - that was a very well considered response. If I could overlook some of the far-left rhetoric peppered throughout this essay? Hell, you might have made ME hot! ;-)

-----------------------------
Examples:

"I don't believe for one instant that he (Bush) was actually "elected.""

"Saudi Arabia, a nation the U.S., via the Bush family, has been in the oil tank with..."

"...the second coming of Bush to destroy Saddam and Gotmoreoil."

"The U.S. is the problem, rather than the solution."

-----------------------------

As one who LIVED in the Middle East for years, I can tell you that your take on this is inspired but largely one-sided. American Democracy is the envy of the world -- while on one hand they (the Arabs) may publicly condemn us, on the other they can't get enough of our movies, music, fashion and the lure of the freedom "to be yourself."

Unfortunately, I am EXTREMELY late at the moment and will have to check back later. My humble apologies for that (the wife is yelling as I type!).

Suffice to say (for now) that you make some valid points, and my hat is off to you for those. NO ONE can know what the right course of action might have been, and judging by today's news from Iraq (extension of the constitution), it would seem that this is teetering on the brink of disaster.

Let me leave you with this question (before she throws something). Given the benefit of hindsight (which Bush didn't have), what would YOU have done as President?

((Don't disappoint me with that "continue the inspections" B.S....I met lots of those guys and it was NOT working))

Cheers // T; August 15, 2005 7:31 PM
S.E.A.L. said...: Moxie said:
"yet the right continues to bury their heads in the sand"

And that places their ass in a perfect position for what is happening to them.

I never cease to be amazed at the American propensity to deceive themselves or deliberately blind themselves to the obvious. For example:

A Bush isn't a Texan. They're from Conneticut. The only horse W ever rode he had to put a quarter in. I grew up on a working cow ranch in West Texas not all that far from Crawford. Those who know him there will tell you he is afraid of horses and hates "filthy" cattle. He isn't a rancher, he owns land he rents out to real ranchers. The hat and boots are a costume, however, the speech problem someone else here alluded to isn't a Texas drawl. Texans don't talk the way he does. They may use inflection and throw in some homilies, but they string words and sentences together that make sense. Listen to his brother and the rest of his family. They all sound like yankees. W actually has a dysfunction. Watch the way he walks, that his proponents refer to as the "swagger." Actually it's uncoordinated. He can't walk in a straight line for more than a few feet. He bumps into things. And, he is obviously ADD as are many children of rich and powerful families who never had to focus upon solving anything or getting things done, they simply tell someone else to do it.

I have had contact with Bush sr. and not W but I know people who know W or have been around him long enough to observe him up close. A couple of the guys who were in the guard with him say they were afraid to be in the same air with him. Others who were at Yale and Harvard with him claim he only went to classes between parties and was drunk or stoned most of the time. I have known many Harvard MBA grads in my life and, as a group, they are extremely bright, intelligent, articulate people with highly developed debating skills. The Kennedys are/were a prime example of the Harvard MBA. So, why does Bush come off like a horny cowhand at the Saturday night hoedown after two quarts of moonshine if he is a graduate of two of the most prestigious Ivy League schools with an MBA?

I'm not the only one who sees these things or asks these questions. What I fail to understand is why everyone else doesn't when it's so obvious.

Friends in DC who are in a position to know tell me that the impact on Bush of the steady drop in the polls, the increasing political setbacks, and the failing support of party favorites faced with reelection problems of their own since the first of the year has been startling. Infighting and dissention among staffers and advisors is constant. Meetings become profane yelling matches usually ending with Bush screaming "get out of here" at anyone who disagrees with him. He called Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, a "goddamn traitor" for coming out in support of stem cell research. Bush's mood swings are so extreme that the house staff has taken to issuing "weather" bulletins via inhouse E-mails as the moods change. One claims W is eating large amounts of anti-depressents. And, we notice how isolated he has become. His only "pubic" appearances are at military conrolled facilities indicating unrational paranoia. Some insiders actually believe Bush is losing control.

Even if only a portion of the above is true, we're in serious trouble. He still has three more years in office and Iran just told him to go fuck himself. The next sound we hear may be the organ playing "Onward Christian Soldiers."; August 15, 2005 9:03 PM
Greg Mills said...: i'm not a Bush kind of guy. That said, some of the innuendo you bring up smacks of the kind of Clinton crap my wingnut young republican friends used to say they "had heard from a friend interning in Senator Shithead's office". Whisper campaigns suck coming from either side.

You're previous post did rock, however and I would smooch you if a) I was single and b) you were a beautiful woman.; August 15, 2005 11:23 PM
Timmer said...: Ummm, SEAL? Hello...where'd ya' go? I think you just took a psychotropic or sumpin'...what the HELL was that?; August 16, 2005 4:53 PM
S.E.A.L. said...: Yeah, well, sorry about that. Got carried away. I knew when I read it on the list that I shouldn't have gone there in the last part of it. Not everyone is actually privy to inside info and the real problem with relaying that kind of stuff is you never know if the writer really knows or is a nutt job. My apologies.; August 16, 2005 7:07 PM
S.E.A.L. said...: Timmer said:
As one who LIVED in the Middle East for years, I can tell you that (snip) American Democracy is the envy of the world -- while on one hand they (the Arabs) may publicly condemn us, on the other they can't get enough of our movies, music, fashion and the lure of the freedom "to be yourself."

Very true, but they live under such an iron-fisted tradition of royalty and gods and their prelates and strife, war, poverty, suffering that it will takes generations of being subjected to exposure and influences to generate the necessary desire and/or envy to overcome the inbred condition. It can't be forced. Especially by devils of the arch enemy - Christianity. It must happen from within. Actually, It's already begun, but the more we meddle in it the longer it will take. And as the Bush administration paints our national face with more and more "faith based" policies the more threatening we become to them.

Those in the Arab world hear the "democracy" rhetoric we espouse and then watch Iraq evolving under our occupation a Shiite majority religious rule that they all know will turn into a purge and subjugation of the Sunni Bathists with continuing disenfrachisment of the Kurds when we leave. So, what was the point? Same country, different dictator.

Many Arabs are pleased with the change because Iraqi women will lose most of the rights Saddam gave them. In many ways, Saddam was very progressive and that was the cause of much of his problems with the traditionalist neighbors. Under Saddam, women were being educated and moving into medicine and other sciences or fields previously forbidden. Admittedly he exercised great prejudice by race or religion, but it was better than no progress at all. Now the Muslim traditions will rule and set the women back to the stone age if we stay long enough to inflict sufficient damage to the Sunnis and establish the Shiites in power.

Asking me what I would have done as president is a great question. I assume you mean faced with 9/11. That isn't fair or even realistic as far as I'm concerned because if I had become president at the same point in history as W did, there would have been no 9/11.
I would not have approached what he inherited as he did, which was no approach at all. His father made a huge mistake by giving in to the UN and not taking Saddam out the first time. It would have been justified since Iraq started it by invading another country and we were there with the support and blessing of the world. Enough troops from around the world would have been available to contol the situation and it would have been a United Nations thing instead of just us for them to hate. Our religion would have been absent from the equation.

During the Clinton administration Iraq was still under UN control, it was their problem with us the power (and influence) behind the throne. We had another, more serious problem. Terrorist attacks against America were esculating with Emassy bombings, kidnappings, and even an attack upon one of our soverign Navy vessels. I never approved of Clinton's handling of those things. We knew then who was behind it and why. If we were not going to withdraw our support of the Israeli aggression against the Muslim world, which was their view and the reason they were attacking us, then we had to take out those responsible. We knew all about bin Laden and where he was operating from. We should have simply gone in and took him and the major portion of his operation out as an example. By not doing so, they grew from success, saw that we had an inattentive leader, and struck.

If I had taken over from Clinton, I would have brought in the proper military minds and told them to go get Al Quida and bin Laden the second day in office. Then I would have told Israel to pull back to their own borders and stop pissing the whole Islam nation off.
Curiously, that is what Bush has recently done. That's why they have pulled out of Gaza.

This is another side to this whole affair that escapes the peoples notice or understanding. The Jews are terrified of this religious right movement into power in America. For them, it's a repetition of their history throughout the world. Being welcome until the wrong element comes to power and then persecuted. The evangelicals hate the Jews and they know it.

The paradox in all of this is that, as America moves closer to theocracy under the guise of democracy (which fools no one), we become what we profess to despise -a dictatorship - for that is what all religions are - arbitrary and supreme rule.; August 16, 2005 8:55 PM

Friday, August 12, 2005

I Don't Know Him, But He Rocks

29 Comments:

MOXIE'S STUFF

VERY IMPORTANT THINGS

My fellow bloggers

Previous Posts

Contributors