Will Sebelius’ abortion stance abort her chance as Obama VP?
On June 11 CBS News moved pro-abortion KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to the top of the list of Barack Obama’s prospective running mates.
Pro-lifers await the day, as a Kansas City Star editorial columnist surprisingly got right on July 10. Recall Planned Parenthood bestowed its Maggie Award to the KCS in 2006 “for editorials supporting reproductive justice, family planning, and the right to confidential health care.” So KCS is no friend, making this candid assessment of an Obama-Sebelius ticket remarkable….
Sebelius has used the power of her office to waylay criminal investigations of infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller as well as Planned Parenthood.
Could the ironic consequence of Sebelius’ love of abortion and abortionists be that she is passed by as a VP pick by the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history? Or that a combined ticket strengthens the odds that abortion brings them both down?
Here’s Shelley’s piece:
Google “Kathleen Sebelius” these days and you’ll find a steady stream of analysis weighing the pros and cons of the KS governor as Barack Obama’s potential running mate.
Pro: She’s a successful blue governor in a red state.
Con: Her fireside rebuttal to President Bush’s State of the Union speech this year sent the nation into a snooze.
Pro: She’s female.
Con: Maybe too female. Some pundits are worried that she and Obama might look too much like a couple.
Overall, the national media are taking the prospect of an Obama-Sebelius ticket seriously, and Obama has done nothing to discourage the notion.
“I love Kathleen Sebelius,” he said recently. “I think she is as talented a public official as there is right now.”
Most analyses peg the KS Democrat an accomplished public servant who would bring minimal baggage to the campaign.
But the safe pick is a dangerous assumption.
There are two kinds of political baggage. One is the kind the candidate packs herself. In that regard Sebelius travels light.
Then there’s the baggage your enemies dump on you. And for that, Sebelius’ adversaries in the anti-abortion camp are fully loaded.
Go back to your Google search and, along with Sebelius’ name, type in the word “abortion.”
Here you’ll find a different kind of analysis.
“A vice president for abortion,” is the headline on a widely circulated column. An Internet site that describes itself as “dedicated to issues of culture, life and family” labels Sebelius as “the most extreme pro-abortion Catholic governor.”
These accusations are at best overblown and at worst blatantly false. They stem from frustration at Sebelius’ refusal to cooperate with right-wing groups and legislators who want to use unconstitutional measures to limit abortions and shut down a Wichita clinic that performs late-term abortions.
It would be nice to dismiss these allegations as the rantings of a few extremists. Polls show only a sliver of the electorate is preoccupied enough with abortion to use it as the sole basis of a voting decision.
But in the glare of a presidential race, Sebelius’ problems with the anti-abortion movement have the potential to blow up into a huge distraction.
Catholic networks have been spreading the word for months via Internet sites and newsletters that Sebelius is “anti-life.” They illustrate their case with photos of the governor, at a reception, standing alongside George Tiller, the physician who performs later-term abortions in Wichita.
If other conservative groups with church connections pick up on that kind of coverage, it’s not difficult to imagine a scenario in which a vote against an Obama-Sebelius ticket is portrayed as a religious obligation.
We saw a similar situation in Missouri, with the 2006 campaign to grant scientists in the state the freedom to practice all forms of stem-cell research permitted under federal law.
Early polls showed overwhelming support for a constitutional amendment protecting medical research. But conservative religious groups opposed the measure, and professional manipulators moved into the state with a dizzying barrage of spin and lies. (Millions of vulnerable women will be exploited for their reproductive eggs! Remember that one?)
The constitutional amendment passed by a hair, but the campaign was a case study in what happens when a political issue gets twisted into a religious crusade.
Who knows? Maybe Obama’s team and the national Democratic Party would be skilled enough to keep the focus on Sebelius as a moderate, pragmatic governor who stood up for clean air when her administration denied permits for construction of coal-fired energy plants in western KS last year.
Maybe Sebelius isn’t as serious a vice-presidential prospect as some of the pundits make her out to be.
But that business of the Kansas governor as a safe pick? It’s risky.
[Photo of Sebelius and late-term abortionist George Tiller and wife, courtesy of Operation Rescue, was taken at a reception the guv hosted for Tiller at her mansion last year]
Please, Obama, please- don’t take our governor from us!
I think Gov. Sibelius would be a poor choice but not because of her abortion stance.
Why not have two radical proaborts on the same ticket? What could be a clearer message from the “great flip-flopper” than that?
but if she was chosen and resigned as governor, the citizens/voters of Kansas *could* eventually elect a PRO LIFE GOVERNOR that would actually sign laws protecting girls and women from coercion, and you can bet a pro life governor would not be getting blood money from Tiller the Killer.
Does anyone know who controls Kathleen’s uterus?
Doyle, McCain is “the great flip-flopper” in this campaign. He even flipped on the torture issue.
Another place McCain has flopped is on his Pro Life stance..He used to be pro choice, now he is pro life with a different tilt. He is ok with sending Americans to go die and ok with bombing middle eastern children.
SoMG,
It’s not that McCain is a flip flopper. He has changed his mind on some issues. But he doesn’t change them with the wind, and he doesn’t change them back again.
My understanding is that his voting record (at least he has one) is pretty consistent.
Obama changes (which he seems to big on) his mind depending on what will get him votes “at the moment”…He belonged to a church for 20 years and “changed” his mind when it came into question.
Here is a list of some of his flips…the flops will become self evident if he gets elected…pun intended.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
McCain has had a lifetime to change his opinions on some issues, while Obama has had a couple of years.
I think it McCains case, it’s a matter of becoming more mature and realizing that things weren’t as he thought they were…(something I wish you would do) but with Obama it’s a case of trying to please everybody by changing his opinions as often as I change Charlottes diaper.
“Does anyone know who controls Kathleen’s uterus?”
God.
Peachpit,
ok with bombing middle eastern children.
Really? I hadn’t heard that. That sure changes things. Imagine, someone actually being FOR bombing middle eastern children. Is that anything like being pro abortion as opposed to pro choice?
Another place McCain has flopped is on his Pro Life stance..He used to be pro choice,,/i.
That’s one “flip” I wouldn’t mind seeing Obama make.
More CHANGES by Obama…I’d think the liberal
Barack Obama says there’s “little doubt” the country is in recession; Newsweek
Yes, he does think it is ok to bomb Muslim babies. Do you think our “collateral” damage is killing someone’s goldfish or their child?
More americans will die if you vote for McCain.
MK, sometimes a big flip-flop is more important than several little ones (some of which are qualifications, not flip-flops.)
For McCain, whose main argument for electing him President seems to be that he survived torture, to flip on torture, indicates something more than mere political expediency. It indicates that he is willing to flip on ANYTHING, no matter how important he is. It would not be surprising any more if he flip-flopped on his opinion of Communism, or on his support for the Bill of Rights.
“More americans will die if you vote for McCain.
Posted by: PeachPit at July 14, 2008 2:17 PM”
—————————————
Really? I thought the military personnel VOLUNTEERED to defend the country ..and die, if needed.
Obama (by his liberal leanings)will kill more (unborn) Americans whether they want it or not.
Yes, he does think it is ok to bomb Muslim babies. Do you think our “collateral” damage is killing someone’s goldfish or their child?
Isn’t that YOUR argument for abortion? That it’s OKAY with you, but that does not mean that you are FOR it?
SoMG,
You’ll have to show me what you mean about the torture thing. I’m no great fan of McCains. I’ll vote for him because of the life issue, but I stopped listening a long time ago…
I’m willing to learn, but I don’t want to work too hard…lol.
I’m going to vote for him, regardless, because for me, there is no greater issue than the slaughter of our children. Not that there aren’t other important issues, but I don’t really want to know. It’s hard enough voting for him as it is.
Obama lets me know he’s a fake, without any effort on my part whatsoever…that one is a no brainer.
Obama lets me know he’s a fake, without any effort on my part whatsoever…that one is a no brainer.
So, so true.
Does anyone really think McCain has more than a 10% chance to win this?
You cannot be pro-life for American babies only.
Nice comments from McCain on adoption today….what a tool jobber…
tool jobber???? that’s a new one :)
What did he say?
as far as being prolife for American Babies…
Collateral damage, accidental, incidental, deaths of children is way different than the intentional slaughter of millions of babies, American or otherwise.
Surely you can see that. All murder is terrible, worse when it’s children.
But intentional murder is worse.
The numbers say it all.
Collateral damage in a middle eastern country isn’t making any friends….
This guy is a NUT:
Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?
Mr. McCain: I think that we
PeachPit, 2:54p, stated re: McCain: “You cannot be pro-life for American babies only.”
You’re right about that. McCain’s adoption record certainly makes your point.
Heeeeeere we go!
John McCain has promised more war. You cannot be pro-life and still bomb women and children not affiliated with that war. That is so contrary to the term Pro-Life. Maybe he can adopt all of the kids that are homeless and without parents in Iraq. That would be a nice gesture. He could put them up in one of his 8 homes. I think they would like to be at the house with the man made lake so they can fish. Then they would forget about their mom or dad being killed in some firefight. See, it can get better.
He can train them to leave crippled wives for younger more attractive and richer women. Another skill needed in our fast-paced world.
He also Czechoslovakia was a country again today. It hasn’t been for 15 years. This guy is good.
SoMG,
Would you object to Dr. Tiller being selected for Obama’s cabinet as Secretary of Heath and Human services?
xalisae,
How is a war in Iraq keep me free?
Now I’m sure you have one of those ribbons on your car that says you support the troops but they aren’t the ones that decided to go there and do they job they were trained to do. I’m not faulting them at all. Someone somewhere decides for them to be there and they are forever honored for their service. I’m faulting the suits that decide when it happens.
McCain = More Americans dying.
I believe a law should be put in place that every pro-life person should have to adopt 10 kids.
Cool, PeachPit! That sounds like a law I can get behind!
I believe a law should be put in place that every pro-choicer should be sterilized. That way, they won’t have to worry about birth control or abortion! Woooooo Hoooo!
Jasper, I don’t think Dr. Tiller has the public-health expertise appropriate for that position. David Grimes would be a better choice.
Xalisae, if your relatives went to Iraq, then I’m sorry to tell you that they have been the victims of a scam.
The primary purpose of the Iraq war is/was not to protect the rights of Americans, but to enable GWBush to call himself a “war president” and to provide an excuse for him to shovel $$$ into the military black hole (actually “black hole” is not a good metaphor, because the money does come out again–it goes into the swiss bank accounts of corrupt military contractors who supported Bush’s campaigns. “Rat hole” would be better.)
I think this thread is beginning to get a little bit out of control. Let’s stick to discussing the topic, which of course can include the war, but let’s try and not make things personal.
X, I had to delete your comment to PP. You made a valid point, but it had some unnecessary name calling. I’m sorry.
Jasper, also, I don’t think Dr. Tiller would be interested in a government position. He likes to do his own thing.
“Americans, but to enable GWBush to call himself a “war president” and to provide an excuse for him to shovel $$$ into the military black hole”
SoMG, google “BDS”
He likes to do his own thing
Yep, like sucking babies brains out. Not exactly oval office conversation I would imagine.
David Grimes would be an extremely impressive choice for HHS or even Surgeon General. Check out his resume:
http://www.med.unc.edu/obgyn/falcultyBios/womensPrimaryHC/grimes.html
Hey I’m for Tiller for Surgeon General if Obama and Katie Sebelius are a team. Sorta fits in nicely with the anti-life death culture they will all go out of their way to promote.
Xalisae, if your relatives went to Iraq, then I’m sorry to tell you that they have been the victims of a scam.
Posted by: SoMG at July 14, 2008 3:56 PM
I guess you would know scams Somg seeing as you perpetrate them everyday on unsuspecting women and their babies. Nice irony!
Patricia, I do for women exactly what they hire me to do. Whatever else it may be, it’s not a scam.
Jasper, you wrote: “SoMG, google “BDS””
Did you know the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary? Look it up and you’ll see.
Sebelius would be a great pick for VP.
Once faithful Catholics get wind of her abominable abortion position, Obama can kiss the White House goodbye.
Much like former altar boy John Kerry.
Yeah, you guys are totally right. I mean, this whole oil war has been so ineffecive, what with all the successful terror attacks going on daily on US soil, and it’s not as though they’ve killed any al qaeda operatives in Iraq at all, and they’re going to be instituting sharia law in seattle next week.
Sorry, but it’s hard for me to forget that the same people we’re fighting over there are people who would have my hands cut off for going to school or wearing make-up, or stone to death the 14 year old VICTIM of rape. I wonder why it seems to be so easy for you all to turn a blind eye to the torture of women…could it be because you do it everyday…even for a living?
Posted by: xalisae at July 14, 2008 5:56 PM
LOL!
Xalisae, do you honestly believe that the absence of successful terror attacks on USA soil and the fact that Seattle is unlikely to institute Sharia in the near future are because of the occupation of Iraq??? Wow.
Also, are you pleased with the current oil situation?
Xalisae, you wrote: “… the same people we’re fighting over there are people who would have my hands cut off for going to school or wearing make-up, or stone to death the 14 year old VICTIM of rape.”
Have you forgotten that Saddam was a secular dictator, not a muslim theocrat?
Getting rid of saddam was just the first step. killing the al qaeda operatives that moved in (and better there than here), which they have been, was step two. and i don’t need people who obviously don’t know good from bad-to the extent you think killing a person in the womb is a good deed-to tell me what is bad, especially when I can just have my husband talk to the Iraqis he comes across over the course of his duties and see what they think (when he was on guard with the interpreters, he said they would play chess and express their gratitude). Once Iraq is a 100% autonomous, secular democracy, and sufficiently emboldens the citizens of Iran who are longing for their own regime change, those trying to frighten the world into converting to Islam will have utterly failed.
SoMG, what do you think of Obama’s recent statement that “mental issues” are not a valid justification for an abortion? Was that a “flip flop”, or have you heard him say that before?
xalisae – how good is that kool aid? goes down smooth huh?
They have only been fighting for 1,000 years. We can get them to get along.
Not a partisan issue here but why can politicians change their viewpoint ever?
xalisae – how good is that kool aid? goes down smooth huh?
They have only been fighting for 1,000 years. We can get them to get along.
Not a partisan issue here but why can politicians change their viewpoint ever?
Doyle, first of all, he was only talking about abortions after viability.
Secondly, he said “mental distress” is not a justification. There are other “mental issues” besides distress, which he did not exclude.
This is obviously a qualification, not a flip-flop.
X-
Many Iranians say that the U.S. presence in Iraq has actually made it harder for them to inch closer to democracy because Iran government starts tightening the restrictions in response to their perceived U.S. interference.
Iranian students had one of their first organized demonstations against the government in years after the surge in iraq started working
I Drew This:
There’s a certain argument out there that goes something like this:
“I was for Hillary Clinton, but now that she’s out of the race I’ll have to vote for John McCain, because he just has more experience than Barack Obama.”
I think this is one of those arguments that makes a kind of intuitive sense but disintegrates almost immediately when you think about it for even a couple of minutes.
What is the point of experience, after all? In the case of the presidency, it’s improved judgment. Are any Hillary supporters prepared to argue that the judgment McCain has exhibited in recent years, and continues to exhibit today, is superior to Obama’s?
McCain supported, and continues to support, the Iraq war. Obama not only opposed it, but in opposing it, predicted basically everything that’s gone wrong with it.
One might fairly ask how valuable it actually is to have years of experience being wrong, making mistakes from which you don’t learn anything. The presidency isn’t a longevity prize, and Obama’s judgment on matters of war is plainly superior.
Ah, but isn’t the point of “experience” also accumulated knowledge? Having been involved in national politics for decades, isn’t John McCain more knowledgeable than a first-term senator like Obama could possibly be?
No.
McCain seems to commit large factual errors almost every day. He claimed we’d drawn troop levels down to pre-surge levels, and when Obama pointed out that we haven’t (there are currently 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 20,000 more than there were in January 2007 before the “surge” started), instead of correcting himself and moving on, McCain dug in his heels and accused the Obama camp of being pedantic and quibbling over “verb tenses.” (Seriously, verb tenses? Then what is he claiming he was trying to say? That at some future date we will have drawn down to pre-surge levels? That we were at pre-surge levels in the past, prior to the surge?)
He claimed he’d supported every investigation into the government’s failures after Hurricane Katrina, but he’d voted against two of them. He’s repeatedly claimed al Qaeda, a sunni organization, is being supported by Shi’ite Iran, and seems not to understand the distinction even after being corrected.
He said he didn’t know much about economics, then denied he’d said it, apparently unaware that, you know, stuff gets recorded.
Obama quite simply does not have any kind of similar gaffe habit. When he discusses an issue, he generally demonstrates a clear and consistent knowledge of it. What’s more, his policy positions are extremely close to Hillary Clinton’s. You’ll like what a President Obama will do. You’ll hate what a President McCain will do.
And isn’t that what democracy is about? Voting for people who will enact policies you’ll like? It’s not a good citizenship prize or a longevity prize or a personality prize (and anyway, I think McCain could win one of those three at best).
For those who think Obama, out of inexperience, might do something dangerous, I have only this to ask: more dangerous than refusing to engage diplomatically with countries we don’t like, instead threatening and bombing them? More dangerous than digging in our heels and continuing to pour money and lives into the pit that is Iraq? More dangerous than continuing George Bush’s bankrupting tax cuts and appointing more far-right judges who will roll back the civil rights gains of the last sixty years?
What that Barack Obama could possibly do even in a worst-case scenario would be as bad as John McCain’s openly stated policies?
Experience by itself is meaningless. What matters is what, if anything, you actually know.
Xalisae, you wrote: “Once Iraq is a 100% autonomous, secular democracy,….”
Wow. Seriously, you seem like a smart woman. Do you really believe that will ever happen? Can you explain why? I’m sincerely curious to understand the basis of your optimism in this regard. I would bet (if I were a betting man) on (lasting) secular democracy in Iraq only if the odds were 10:1 or better. But I’m not a middle-east expert; maybe you know something I don’t know.
You wrote: “… and sufficiently emboldens the citizens of Iran who are longing for their own regime change, those trying to frighten the world into converting to Islam will have utterly failed.”
Really? If Iraq becomes a secular democracy, will Saudi Arabia stop funding the teaching of pro-jihad Wahhabi/Salafist Islam in Western schools? Or for that matter in their own schools?
My understand is, those trying to frighten the world into converting to Islam do not recognize failure. They think in the infinitely-long term and there is no such thing as failure, only setbacks. As long as there are people who read the Koran literally that effort will be alive.
That’s three questions I’ve asked and I would be very grateful for the opportunity to learn from your answers: 1. Why do you believe Iraq will become a lasting secular democracy; 2. If Iraq–and I’ll throw in Iran, let’s say both become secular democracies–why do you think that would end the Koran-mandated effort to force the entire world to convert to worship of Allah? 3. Why do you think the absence of spectacular acts of terror on USA soil is in any way connected to the takedown of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq?
If you only have time to answer one of these questions, please answer number three. Thank you very much.
Thought you would be interested in seeing this video investigation of Planned Parenthood and racism that is happening today:
http://liveactionfilms.org/
PART I: Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE
New Mexico: Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgf5m1QoCOU
Hannity & Colmes on Planned Parenthood Rape Investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S99jkoQp1c
-David R. Schmidt, LiveActionFilms Media Director
Whatever else it may be, it’s not a scam.
Posted by: SoMG at July 14, 2008 5:19 PM
Sure it is. Whenever you purposefully hide the facts, therefore play the shell game…it’s a scam on the gullible public…esp. those already nervous and not thinking clearly. It’s the worst kind of advantage taking there is.
Have you forgotten that Saddam was a secular dictator, not a muslim theocrat?
Who cares the costume used to cover…a sadist is a sadist is a sadist. Evil is evil is evil. The clear lines of demarcation dividing good and evil these days are completely evident. It’s that “choice” that the individual conscience must make that more and more is calling good, evil and evil, good that’s bringing the world to chaos. You can’t go against created order to this degree and not reap horror. And you still continue to whistle past the graveyard. It’s all around us and closing in more and more each day. Not much time for reparation making. Continue the evil road and face the eternal consequences. And I doubt if points so earnestly made on blog comments will matter much…esp. after the moral/natural law has been explained over and over. No excuse.
Also, are you pleased with the current oil situation?
What a sophomoric question! Current?? This rising supply problem has been in the radar for decades and the partisans…esp. the know nothings…have found every excuse not to act. And, just to clue in the lack of world view here, the supply ain’t increasin, but the huge demand from the huge populations of India and China, is, and has been on the horizon. So, I doubt if anyone in the world is “pleased”!! What a scarcity of logic is evident in these comments. But then, “sin makes you stupid”.
1.) Secular democracy is the natural progression of society…the evolution required for advancement, of the people, institutions, and businesses within a country. 2.) A proper secular democracy and a theocratic dictatorship are mutually exclusive to one another. if one exists, the other cannot, and if the latter attempts to take root in the former, a satisfied populace would aid the established government in weeding them out. 3.) The killing and capturing of high-ranking officials in terrorist organizations in Iraq is a common occurrence. That, coupled with the willingness of the local populace to cooperate with security forces within that country in ridding their neighborhoods of these undesirable elements both prevents the strongest elements of those organizations from making and carrying out plans against us, and helps to strengthen the country of Iraq itself.
SoMG,
Sure it is. Whenever you purposefully hide the facts, therefore play the shell game…it’s a scam on the gullible public…esp. those already nervous and not thinking clearly. It’s the worst kind of advantage taking there is.
But isn’t this what you do? Take advantage of an already nervous/not thinking clearly party? Play the shell game with fact…use a scam on gullible women willing to buy anything your selling just to get their lives back?
I just realized that KC posted that, not you SoMG, but the question remains…In the end, are’nt you a scam artist?
I’ve asked you this a number of times and I’ll keep asking til you answer me or tell me to stop asking because you won’t answer…
Why does a guy with brains, talent and passion choose to destroy instead of create?
I was under the impression that one of the reasons we are in Iraq as opposed to somewhere else, was that it was an easy coup and we needed somewhere to “land”…somewhere to fight “from”…
That too, mk. ;)
MK,
Yet Iraq is one the countries with the most internal divisions.
It has to be admitted that we invaded Iraq because we wanted a foothold in the middle east for (mostly) economic purposes and saddam was an easy target. Otherwise, we’d be fighting “terrorism” in many other countries. The war on “terror” centered on Iraq because it seemed to be the most financially lucrative country to invade.
No, PIP. Look at the insurgents we’re fighting: syrian, iranian, saudi arabian, jordanian…it’s got easy access to and from a lot of different countries…great for staging, great for drawing our enemies to us.
X,
9:29
Exactly.
We certainly didn’t want to fight from on our own soil. And the Iraqi people were ripe for change.
I thought that Iraq was pretty well into the 20th century. Saddam, for all his faults, was not a theocrat. Which meant that the people of Iraq thought differently than the people of Iran or Afghanistan. They were ready to become a democracy.
Thats false PIP. We invaded Iraq because of the threat of WMD and Saddam’s violation of the war treaty after the gulf war and the violation of 18 UN resolutions. After the invasion, President Bush could have easily left it a mess, but was dedicated to rebuilding Iraq.
Your side’s cynicism will not win out.
Btw: How come Obama is not going to remove the troops immediatly after he takes office? Why is he changing his tune now?
Did you realize that 500 tons of Uranium were found in Iraq?
http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/orion_blastar/2008/jul/06/yellowcake_uranium_found_in_iraq_saddams_legacy_bush_was_right
I think war is a complete waste of money.
Elite soldiers can be trained to be target any threats we may have, and instead of throwing a bunch of 18-year-olds to the wolves, we could have just taken out anyone who was in charge. We have the means and intelligence to do so, the fact that we don’t just reeks of bad PR on the side of government. Bush wanted something he’d go down in history for, not to keep our country safe by quietly eliminating those who would cause us harm.
Well, he has, and many others have gone down with him, unnecessarily.
Insurgency happens in countries ALLLLL over the world. Why the Middle East and not Africa? Why not South America? Why do we only “protect” and “serve” in countries where we can make a profit while leaving others to deal with their own problems? PiP is right — there were financial reasons for invading Iraq. Those reasons have benefited those who are heavily invested in the oil trades, as well as independent contractors who have been given free reign to terrorize in other countries, but the rest of us are suffering higher oil prices and more than half of our tax dollars being shuffled off to pay for a war.
Well, the American people could have invested those dollars into creating the most sophisticated targeted military force in the world and silently snuffing out threats, rather than raise a bunch of teenagers to obey commands to kill. They’re not dogs. They’re people.
It’s pathetic that our country cares more about establishing a military presence around the world and making money than preserving peace and the lives of our own people.
So you want to motivate and drag dangerous terrorists through Iraq? Collateral damage indeed.
Ever thought to think that us trying to play mommy to the middle east is actually making it worse for the Iraqi people by increasing the number of insurgent attacks?
As GWB said, ‘their not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either.’
Eydt,
I don’t know where to start, what a bunch of junk you just wrote.
Jasper,
Because taking out all troops immediately is a horrible idea. I don’t believe Obama ever indicated that he would take out all the troops immediately.
Exactly, Edyt.
Xalisae, thanks for your answers. If “secular democracy is the natural progression of society” how do you explain what is happening in Russia? And what is threatening to happen in Turkey? (I won’t ask you to try to explain China because I dont’ think anyone can do that.)
You wrote: “A proper secular democracy and a theocratic dictatorship are mutually exclusive to one another. if one exists, the other cannot,”
Doesn’t the fact that both Israel and Saudi Arabia exist in the same world contradict this? Maybe I’m not understanding you correctly.
Regarding your answer to number three, you seem to be suggesting that there are more terrorist masterminds plotting against the USA per capita in Iraq than in other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, England, Holland, and all the countries of Eurabia, and for that matter here in the USA. I don’t understand why this should be true. Do they move to Iraq, or do they grow there? Why are so many Iraquis wealthy enough to plot spectacular acts of terror in a country so far away? Isn’t it true that anyone with that much money is really international anyway (except people famously associated with their countries like Mugabe (who unfortunately probably will not starve to death))?
Jasper,
If you don’t understand it I can write it in simpler words.
Yes he did PIP from his website. Obama promised to hand over Iraq to Al-Queda as soon as possible:
“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=238594
Jasper,
I see nothing in those statements that contradict his main one.
He has a basic plan, but if something doesn’t work out he will actually listen to the people in charge to help determine what to do next. I call that being a smart and diplomatic leader.
Jasper, the key is: “Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. ”
That’s what we like to hear. Didn’t Pat Buchanan write a book called A REPUBLIC NOT AN EMPIRE?
And MK, I do create. What I create is called freedom.
Yes, he does think it is ok to bomb Muslim babies. Do you think our “collateral” damage is killing someone’s goldfish or their child?
More americans will die if you vote for McCain.
Posted by: PeachPit at July 14, 2008 2:17 PM
PP,
Get a clue. If we backed down they would come back and srike in the US again. Then we are left with the nuclear option. You are SOOO short-sighted.
I believe a law should be put in place that every pro-choicer should be sterilized. That way, they won’t have to worry about birth control or abortion! Woooooo Hoooo!
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at July 14, 2008 3:55 PM
G’sMom, good to see you with a little fire in your belly.
“Didn’t Pat Buchanan write a book called A REPUBLIC NOT AN EMPIRE?”
Yes, but I didn’t agree with PB on the Iraq war.
The Israeli’s should be the only ones in this world standing up to terror.
What that Barack Obama could possibly do even in a worst-case scenario would be as bad as John McCain’s openly stated policies?
PIP,
Trying to negotiate and appease them would be far worse cause it would end up in the nuclear option which would be 1000 times worse for humanity. Your intentions are good but you really are naive if you don’t think the US would drop the bomb again only like I said, it would be thousands of times worse. Just horrid.
And MK, I do create. What I create is called freedom.
Posted by: SoMG at July 14, 2008 10:15 PM
All hail the creator of freedom. OMG I think i’m wetting my pants.
I strongly disagree with the idea that maintaining imperial military bases in Iraq is “standing up to terror”.
I strongly disagree with the idea that maintaining imperial military bases in Iraq is “standing up to terror”.
They’re not imperial SoMG. …..
Haven’t you been paying attention to where the terror is the past several years? Not in Sweden.
Jasper, the bases certainly are imperial. What else are they? What do you call it when a country invades a distant, much weaker and less advanced country, dissolves its government, and attempts to substitute a government similar to and friendly to its own? It may be justified, it may be enlightened, but it is certainly imperialism. The only question is whether it is good imperialism or bad imperialism. Or as in this case, corrupt and wasteful imperialism.
You wrote: “Haven’t you been paying attention to where the terror is the past several years? Not in Sweden.”
I’m not an expert but from reading the papers I would say the most terror is probably occurring in Darfur, Zimbabwe, probably also in Russia but we’re not hearing about it in Russia. That is if you’re counting as “terror” the strategic use of mob-type violence and murder by government agents and cops to intimidate and eliminate political opposition. If your definition of “terror” means killing strangers, not specifically-targetted political opponents, in order to make a point, then I’d still count Darfur first, then probably Pakistan, then maybe Iraq. Terror in Iraq is disproportunately amplified by the right wing of the press.
Let’s not forget also that this conversation started because Xalisae claimed that the occupation of Iraq was responsible for the absence of spectacular terror ON US SOIL since 9/11. In fact every dollar we spend on Iraq is one fewer dollar for monitoring mosques and muslim schools in the USA, tracking loose nukes from the former USSR, and supporting ideological anti-terror measures such as non-violent interpretations of the Koran and the ex-muslim movement.
Finally, McCain is either delusional or shamelessly lying when he says he thinks Islamic terror is an existential threat to our civilization or the greatest current threat to our country. Suppose the worst happens and they nuke a city or even several cities. That’s definitely very bad but it’s not anywhere near the end of Western Civilization or even the USA. Islam will only be an existential threat if we foolishly allow muslims to become a voting majority. Government bankruptcy is a much greater and nearer danger. Loss of scientific/technical world supremacy is a much greater medium-and-long-term danger.
SoMG,
And MK, I do create. What I create is called freedom.
When my oldest kids were young boys we would go to Foster ave beach on many summer days. I’d pack a baggies filled with pipe cleaners, confettie, streamers, toothpick flags…
We’d spend 5 or 6 hours building the most amazing sand castles.
Around 4:30 in the afternoon or so, youngs boys would start hanging around us. Just sort of staring and hanging off to the side. We’d ususally pack up around 5:00 or so and by then there would be 10 or 15 boys, just standing there.
Before we even made it off of the sand, they would all descend upon the castle and stomp it, kick it and basically destroy it.
My boys would be so upset.
I told them that there are two kinds of people in the world.
Those that create. And those that destroy.
I assume your answer was flippant, but perhaps you really do believe that what you do is “create” freedom.
But all I see, is a boy, that is angry, and has no respect for “others”. I never got a chance to ask those kids why? Why didn’t they join us in making the castle? What pleasure did they derive from destroying that little piece of art?
It would be akin to someone coming into one of your operas and blasting heavy metal, claiming that they are freeing the audience from that boring, old people music. Wouldn’t your reaction be that they just don’t understand the beauty of the Opera? That their minds were ill formed, their hearts too small, to appreciate this higher forms of art? Wouldn’t they be freer if, instead of destroying the Opera, they chose instead to learn how to listen to it?
Why SoMG, with your incredible gifts, do you choose to knock down the sand castle, when you could help to build it?
You say you create freedom. Why don’t you create freedom by giving those women a chance to love and raise their babies? Why do you create freedom, by destroying life?
Two kinds of people. Why do some choose to destroy? Why do you choose to destroy?
There is no “freedom” in having your own child killed by abortion. It creates bondage to the darkness of your shame and pain and regret. You know somewhere deep inside you that you ended the life of your child. What you have done can never be undone.
Freedom is found in Christ and Christ alone.
And MK, I do create. What I create is called freedom.
Posted by: SoMG at July 14, 2008 10:15 PM
not for babies you don’t – you create death
not for women you don’t – you create years of regret
not for men you don’t – you steal their fatherhood
Patricia, I do for women exactly what they hire me to do. Whatever else it may be, it’s not a scam.
Posted by: SoMG at July 14, 2008 5:19 PM
Most women do not “hire” you Somg. They are in distress and they are often brought to abortion due to pressure and coercion.
It’s not the same as a woman showing up at the orthopedic surgeons office you know.
Two kinds of people. Why do some choose to destroy? Why do you choose to destroy?
Posted by: mk at July 15, 2008 6:34 AM
This is an interesting concept MK.
I remember in the 1990’s there was a young girl dying of cancer in Toronto. She was 6 or 7 years old and had been battling the illness for years. The doctors told her that she would likely not live much longer. She was in the papers quite alot and after her death her parents told about a dream she had when she was a little younger – maybe 4 or 5. Jesus appeared to her in the dream and asked her to suffer for sinners.
He told her that many people is this world are “takers”. He asked her if she would be a ‘giver” and she told Him yes!
Sadly, Somg has chosen to be a “taker”.
My girlfriend and I have a term we use for people who give nothing back but are takers – we call them black holes.
Patricia,
But don’t you find that those “black holes” are people who themselves are empty? That by taking, they are trying to fill a vast void? That by destroying, they are trying to make sure that if they can’t have joy, peace, love, then no one else will either?
I don’t even think they realize how empty they are.
They just go through life with a vague feeling of not having something that everyone else appears to have.
Those boys did not have a mom that spent hours building a castle with them. Did they feel gypped? Did they feel that if they couldn’t have that, then no one else should, either?
I would gladly have let them join us. But it never even occurred to them.
Sometimes I just feel that there is so much “NEED” in the world, so many holes that need to be filled. Black Hole indeed.
Edyt: Well, the American people could have invested those dollars into creating the most sophisticated targeted military force in the world and silently snuffing out threats,
You sound like Jimmy Carter who decimated our humint (human intelligence – on the ground – best kind) so that we had to rely on the kind of intelligence (remote, “safe”, techy kind) that was inaccurate enough in Iraq to convince most world leaders at the time. He, followed by Mr. Clinton, laid the soft underbelly for the first time war attack on our own soil (besides the first Mr. Bush not completing the job in Iraq – no one today would be questioning the reasoning behind any presence in Baghdad if it had been connected to that war). War, or defense of our own – so they can blabber stuff freely on blogs – is always ugly and horrible and will always involve the sacrifice of blood for others and for their beloved country’s security. So far, those decoys’ lives have protected us at home, along with aggressive security measures. Pray every day for their security and success there…and for the now growing security of the people in that country. The real horror is that such “freedom” has also brought the evil that wishes to destroy it…so called “freedom of choice”. And to watch the partisans in congress “freely” work to even bring down the country just for the sake of not wanting the opposition to gain any credit for good – such as now the question of security of the country through new energy sources – is a truly miserable thing. To abuse the citizens, who pay their salaries, for their own selfish agendas, is literally suicide of the nation on their watch.
,i>But don’t you find that those “black holes” are people who themselves are empty? That by taking, they are trying to fill a vast void? That by destroying, they are trying to make sure that if they can’t have joy, peace, love, then no one else will either?
OH MK if you only knew how true and exact this is! My girlfriend almost married one and well you know my story….
Patricia, you do not seem to know what the word “hire” means.
SoMG,
I would be most curious as to your answer to MK’s query.
She is definitely a passionate person. And when it comes to opera, so are you.
So what gives?
You sound like Jimmy Carter who decimated our humint (human intelligence – on the ground – best kind) so that we had to rely on the kind of intelligence (remote, “safe”, techy kind) that was inaccurate enough in Iraq to convince most world leaders at the time.
KC, I’m not arguing for one kind of military intelligence over another — whether that’s on the ground, from far away, or in our enemy’s backyards peeking in the window. I believe all kinds of intelligence are important and extremely useful. What I disagree with is sending trigger-happy, uneducated 18-year-olds to the forefront of a battle they may not understand where they will without a doubt kill innocent human beings and be killed themselves.
I realize there will be a point in which obvious brute force was necessary. I do not think our mission in Iraq was one of those situations.
He, followed by Mr. Clinton, laid the soft underbelly for the first time war attack on our own soil (besides the first Mr. Bush not completing the job in Iraq – no one today would be questioning the reasoning behind any presence in Baghdad if it had been connected to that war).
I find this a chicken before the egg sort of question. Was it Clinton (et al) that made our country weak? Or did terrorists strike when they saw a sign of weakness (Bush)? We cannot say for certain, so this sort of accusation may not do us any good when we look back on our historical mistakes.
War, or defense of our own – so they can blabber stuff freely on blogs – is always ugly and horrible and will always involve the sacrifice of blood for others and for their beloved country’s security.
Ahh… but there’s an important part of government you’re forgetting. The president can only declare war on another country. Wars against drugs, against terrorism, against crime… are all symbolic and utterly meaningless. We were attacked by terrorists, not Iraq. What we are doing in Iraq is essentially fighting a civil war (that is, a war within a country, but I’m sure you knew that). Hence why the Iraq war is popularly called the War in Iraq rather than the War with Iraq.
Now… tell me, how did we get to striking back against terrorists (in Afghanistan) to getting into a war in Iraq?
Here’s a hint: Terrorism had very little to do with it. But it was good PR anyhow, and most people don’t know the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, so who cares? Ah, history.
So far, those decoys’ lives have protected us at home, along with aggressive security measures. Pray every day for their security and success there…and for the now growing security of the people in that country. The real horror is that such “freedom” has also brought the evil that wishes to destroy it…so called “freedom of choice”.
Well, my definition and your definition of freedom may be completely different from their definition of freedom. I don’t know how much we’ve really “helped” over there, that couldn’t have been settled on its own and decided by its own people. Regardless, if I think of another country coming in and policing us because we’re not getting along too well (say another civil war breaks out), I’m not going to be too happy with that either. It doesn’t hurt to look at it from their perspective.
And to watch the partisans in congress “freely” work to even bring down the country just for the sake of not wanting the opposition to gain any credit for good – such as now the question of security of the country through new energy sources – is a truly miserable thing. To abuse the citizens, who pay their salaries, for their own selfish agendas, is literally suicide of the nation on their watch.
Certainly everyone has their own opinion on the Iraq War and how to deal with it at this point. I don’t think it’ll destroy our country though. We have plenty of other internal threats that are far more likely to do that job. ;)
Carder, which query do you have in mind?
I was against the war from the outset and am furious at what that idiot Bush has done.
Problem is we are in a war. A complete victory is absolutely essential. The forces opposing us there are vicious and will brutalize the population.
We cannot abandon those people.
I am as mad as anyone and there is no good answer. There is death behind every door. There is no safe way out. Some say better them than us. I think that it is disgusting to invade and get the folks to help you, then quit and leave them to the wolves.
I deplore the loss of Americans too. My friends’ kids are over there. However they wanted to go. Some folks really have a taste for that.
I was shocked when I found out we were going into Iraq. I am still shocked we did something so stupid and largely pointless that caused thousands of needless deaths. Leaving without a strong Iraq gov’t and military will mean even more death and misery.
It is all so disgusting.
“MSM Yawn at 550 Metric Tons of Uranium Removed from Iraq”:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/07/07/msm-yawn-550-metric-tons-uranium-removed-iraq
it’s always easier to bash President Bush…
Jasper, read here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2085848/
Money quotes: “Yellowcake is a first step toward enriched uranium, but it’s a long way from being weapons-grade. The powder must still be converted into uranium hexafluoride before it can be enriched, the process that makes the sort of uranium used by nuclear power plants and bomb-makers alike.”
Hippie, if you were “shocked” when we went into Iraq you must have been seriously out of touch.
Somg: people hire killers not doctors.