Posted on 08/18/2005 1:57:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 08/18/2005 3:43:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Move America Forward will be conducting the “You Don’t Speak for Me, Cindy” caravan beginning next week. It will feature military family members who have loved ones serving in the war against terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan. The delegation will be led by Deborah Johns of Marine Moms. (Her son has served in Operation Iraqi Freedom).
Main caravan leaves from San Francisco, California on Monday, August 22nd. Other caravans will depart from around the country. If you want to be part of a caravan, email us with your name and location you will depart from and we will include in our caravan coverage so people in your area can depart with you.
Everyone arrives in Crawford, Texas for a giant “We Support Our Troops AND Their Mission” Rally on Saturday, August 27, 2005.
If you have a loved one serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and would like to join the caravan please contact Move America Forward’s Robert Dixon: Robert@MoveAmericaForward.org
I would be interested.
I think we can have a rally in Fresno when the caravan gets here. Looks like they'll be here overnight on Monday.
YES!!!!! Bless you!
That's a great suggestion!
(Or, if law enforcement is unavailable, some bikers. The brave PETA-types never throw paint on bikers wearing leather or fur. I imagine they'd be similarly less heroic in this instance, too.)
We will keep you informed.
Thanks. It will be good to do something.
Hey guys just heard on Sean Hannity that Cindy is leaving Crawford and heading home. Is this true? Something about mom having a stroke??
Verify please.
Please pass the following message along to the folks who are organizing this effort:
There were 262,000 American military fatalities in WW II. That was mostly drafted personnel, not volunteers. So there HAD to have been a higher ratio of "Cindy Sheehans" then, than there are now. If we assume equality and 1% of the "Sheehan" moms are anti-war, that would be 18 such people today.
Apply the same standard of 1% to WW II. There would have been 2,620 "Sheehan" moms then. How did the New York Times, Time magazine, NBC Radio News, and the other press outlets that existed then, cover the "Sheehan" moms from WW II?
At any press conference, any reporter for any newspaper, magazine or radio station which existed at the time of WW II should be challenged by name to go into its own records and report the truth about how it handled this very situation then, as opposed to now. And they should be challenged to explain in editorial form why these differences existed between then and now.
Those few who are capable of both logic and introspection should be influenced to make what they say and report, more honest as a result. I do not expect this to have a particle's influence on what Sheehan and her enablers change their behavior in any way. But it could improve the press coverage just slightly, if not more.
Hope this is useful.
John / Billybob
Just heard on the news that Cindy is leaving Crawford because her mother is ill.
Maybe the people who go could make a nice gesture towards the town of Crawford to say, "thanks for putting up with our traffic, noise, etc." Be sure to patronize as many local businesses as you can, and spend money.Excellent idea. Rather than belittling Sheehan, we emphasize the differences, everything from manners to patriotism to common sense. Besides, we can always belittle her in private where it can't be used in the PR battle. And it's entirely possible that she is mentally unbalanced and isn't really the one in charge.
I'm thinking I-35 will be a parking lot from Austin to Dallas!:^)
I heard on Fox News that her Mom had a stroke.
I think the anti-Bush people will still be in Crawford. Sure wish I could go. :)
John / Billybob
I take it you prefer double-minded thinking? Also, please first define "nationalism" and then give evidence thereof.
I served during the Vietnam war...
My younger brother is in Afghanistan and was nearly killed in March and he will be there another 5 months. And your point is...?
I support the rational use of force, I support honesty and integrity, and I support all of our troops.
Well, I suppose it goes without saying that we here at Free Republic support the use of force only in the most irrational way possible, we prefer dishonesty even when honesty would help us, we hate integrity, and we support only our favorite troops, i.e., those who are the coolest-looking or have the neatest nicknames, look best in spandex, can play a mean guitar, or can turn their eyelids inside out and make the best artificial armpit f@rt sound.
However, support of the troops should not be confused with support for the war in Iraq, or support for the policy that placed us in this war.
Then neither should support for John Kerry last Fall be confused with support for him becoming president.
There has been no demonstrataion of a nexus between terrorism and this war...
FALSE. Apparently you plug your ears and hum really loud when this "nexus" is demonstrated over and over.
Hussein was harboring and supporting terrorists -- from Abu Abbas (the guy who hijacked the Achille Lauro and threw Leon Klinghoffer overboard) to Al Qaeda -- since the 1980's. He supported Zarqawi and his AQ splinter group in the north, which subsequently put together a plot to gas Jordanian police HQ and the American embassy in Jordan with chem weapons that was foiled by Jordanian intel in April 2003. At Salman Pak there was the shell of an airliner where terrorists practiced hijacking. Before he was toppled, Saddam was sending $25,000 to each Palestinan family that sent a child into Israel for a suicide bombing. Hassan al Turabi, leader of Sudan in the late 1980's and early 1990's, brokered meetings between Hussein and his underlings and Al Qaeda leaders. The list goes on and on and on and on and on (See "The Connection" by Stephen F. Hayes - Harper Collins).
All of the above is paramount, far above whether not WMD were found in Iraq -- and they were in small amounts, as was a just-in-time delivery system designed to very quickly manufacture such weapons the moment inspectors left (read the final reports by David Kay and Charles Duelfer, the UN inspectors). Nobody complained in the days after 9/11 when Bush stated that any state that harbored Islamic terrorists was our enemy and that they would pay the price. Everybody was fine with that idea then but apparently he wasn't supposed to really mean it after everyone's emotions of the moment died down. The Oprah-fication of America continues...
You are probably trying to narrow the definition of "nexus" (which is to say 'connection') to mean that if Saddam was not sitting right at the table planning 9/11, then there is no connection. This is roughly equivalent to saying there was no connection between the ships of the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor and the rest of the Japanese Navy.
The degree of terrorist activity in Iraq is the result of our being there; i.e., the terrorism wasn't there prior.
This might have something to do with why the degree of terrorist activity in the USA is near zero -- in terms of actual terrorist events. Better to fight them there than here. Here we have to jump through all kinds of legal hoops designed to make the bad guys win. There they continue to funnel their jihadi "soldiers" directly into a meatgrinder like sticks thrown into a woodchipper. Iraq is a quagmire all right -- for them. The US military serves as both the bait and the trap.
And please, don't say that I a support Saddam Hussein or his regime - it was horrible, but there are also many other horrible regimes throughout the world, and we don't take unilateral and unprovoked action against them.
This is childish, nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah, nyaaaah---nyaaaah logic. Because we are not taking on all the bullies of the world at once, we are hypocrites if we take on ANY of them -- equivalent to saying that you are a hypocrite if you give money to any charities because you're not giving to ALL of them.
We didn't even take on every bully in WW2 -- we even allied ourselves with one of them, Stalin. Should we not have done that either?
We should not have gone to Iraq, and now that we are there and the stated reason for doing so has been shown to be false, we should withdraw as soon as possible.
I repeat: Any state that harbors Islamic terrorists and terror organizations is fair game.
Will there be chaos in Iraq? Sure, but probably no worse than it is now.
There was very little chaos in Nazi Germany after Krystallnacht. The amount of "chaos" is beside the point. Who wins before the chaos ends IS the point. I'll give you a hint who won on Krystallnacht -- it wasn't the Jews...
The administration reports that the insurgency is not representative of the Iraqis, and that almost all Iraqis are on the side of democracy. If this is, then our withdrawal will not have a great effect on their progress.
No great effect at all...no more than letting a child drive a car solo without learning where the brake pedal is first.
What a withdrawal will do is spare other people from having their children put in harms way, when such is not necessary.
If you think that withdrawal "will spare other people from having their children put in harm's way", then you do not understand the nature of the enemy we face.
We are not protecting our country from terrorism by being there, and I would say that we are honoring our troops by taking all necessary action to withdraw them from a war based on bogus reasons, rather than stubbornly staying there as an act of Nationalism (i.e., our country, right or wrong).
What were your bogus reasons for saying the war was "based on bogus reasons" again?
Calling the Iraq Campaign a "war" is bogus. It is but one theater in a larger war on Islamic terrorism -- further evidence that you do not understand the nature of the enemy we face.
We ARE in fact protecting our country from terrorism by being there because the only way to defeat our enemy is to drain the swamp that breeds them. Democratizing the Middle East is our only hope: if we fail, they will eventually get their hands on nukes and either kill or enslave us all. Tell your female friends and family to start sewing up their radiation-proof burkas...
Anyone who thinks Hanoi Kerry isn't behind the anti war crowd needs to get a clue.
Spineless US Senate would rather protect Hanoi Kerry
than deal with the anti war crowd.
It's time to support our troops and ignore the jelly fish in the US Senate!
Anyone who thinks Hanoi Kerry isn't behind the anti war crowd needs to get a clue.
There is no need to impeach Hanoi Kerry from the US Senate
He is there illegally!
WAKEUP AMERICA!
For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.
Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen
Why is Kerry still in the US Senate?
This is in violation of
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
And the FBI has proof of his treason.
Hanoi Kerry Timeline of a traitor
includes FBI files
May 1970
Kerry and Julia traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.
(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)
http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html
a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war,
or with any offense punishable by death,
may be tried at any time without limitation.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#*%20843.%20ART.%2043.%20STATUTE%20OF%20LIMITATIONS
Distribute these url's!
Links to Anti Kerry sites
212 LINKS
News reports,
Viper's Vietnam Veterans Page
http://members.aol.com/ga1449ga/links/links.html
EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!
MUST SEE WEBSITE!!!!
http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html
Full details on these url's!
http://stophanoikerry.150m.com
There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.
http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html
Did you see this...?
(The 'Kerry's Promise Counter')
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=6628
Polipundit even tells you how to install it on your own page!
I have always wondered the same thing, who is caring for Sheehan's children and how is she living, she strikes me as the kind who has already gone thru any money she got from her son's death benifits.
Do you agree with Sheehan's views?
No
57%
Yes
43%
Total Votes: 49,405
APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!! This military mom thanks you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.