Cindy Sheehan hammered hard in UK Guardian piece

Cindy Sheehan/'Nightline' email situation mentioned in UK Guardian

piece

A friend sent me a link from the Guardian newspaper in the UK which

included the Christopher Hitchens' (http://www.slate.com) piece (by his

researcher) about the 'Nightline' email situation with Cindy Sheehan..

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/niall_stanage/2007/07/the_epic_narcissism_of_cindy_s.html

Here is a tinyurl for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/2umfyk

Additional at following URL as well:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/07/the_trashing_of_cindy_sheehan.php

Here is the tinyurl for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/2wx7c5

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:51:22 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: For Karen Houppert/Cindy Sheehan

Dear Ms. Houppert,

Please consider doing a piece about how disingenuous Cindy Sheehan is

being when Chris Matthews (of MSNBC's 'Hardball' broadcast) asked her

what she thought the motivation was for the Iraq war and Cindy put

forth the 'for profit' motive when she wrote that it was for a PNAC

Neocon agenda to benefit Israel in that ABC 'Nightline' email that was

sent on her behalf to the producers at 'Nightline' per her request to

do so (simply do a yahoo.com, Google.com or similar search to see the

Wikipedia write-up about Cindy which mentions my name there as well..)

as I just saw your piece for 'The Nation' as well via the following

URL:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060612/houppert/5

There is war profiteering in most wars, but such wasn't the primary

motivation for Iraq. Securing the realm for Israel in accordance with

the 'A Clean Break' was (again, one can read about the 'A Clean Break'

from Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book via the following URL):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769

Here are two URLs (take a look at the 'Hardball' transcript below

which includes the interview that Cindy did with Chris Matthews

yesterday):

http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/sidebar/2124791/

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-sheehan-mother-of-spc-casey.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/dga3w

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19830397/

Well, Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist, probably the most

famous. Her son, Casey, was killed during his service in the Iraq

war. She's currently on a 17-city, two-and-a-half-week tour called

"Journey for Humanity," protesting against President Bush and actually

calling for his impeachment. Cindy Sheehan joins us now from

Charlotte, North Carolina. Thank you very much for joining us, Cindy

Sheehan.

CINDY SHEEHAN, SON DIED IN IRAQ: Hi, Chris. Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Thank you. Well, let me ask you about impeachment. What

are the grounds? I mean, imagine you're a member calling for

impeachment on the floor of the Senate, or conviction. What would you

say?

SHEEHAN: Well, I would say the lies and the deceptions that led to an

illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, that has led to the deaths of

hundreds of thousands of people, I would say breaking the FISA laws by

spying on Americans without warrants that George Bush admitted to, I

would say the inadequate and tragic response to Katrina. I would say

for authorizing torture. I would say for authorizing consolidating

executive power, all the power in one branch. And I think there are

many grounds that impeachment could be started on.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that we have waged an aggressive war in

Iraq?

SHEEHAN: Well, I think that it was illegal and immoral. There were

no weapons of mass destructions. There was no connection between

Saddam and 9/11, and all evidence has shown, especially this week,

that what we're doing is strengthening al Qaeda and strengthening

hatred against us for occupying the country and destroying a country

that was no threat to us.

MATTHEWS: Why do you think President Bush, Vice President Cheney,

Paul Wolfowitz, the other hawks in this administration-why do you

think they took us to war?

SHEEHAN: Well, I think it was a lot to do with oil. It was a lot to

do with destabilizing that region, which they have done very

thoroughly. The Iraqi refugee crisis has made the entire region

compromised there. And I think it was for profit. I mean, it's for

Halliburton. It's for Blackwater. It's for Standard Oil. It's for

the war profiteers. And that's why war is usually waged.

MATTHEWS: You believe that this was-this war was fought because

people in the White House decided to make some money for their pals in

business? You really believe that?

SHEEHAN: I believe that that...

MATTHEWS: That they sent...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: That they sent 3,600 Americans to their death and 20,000-

some losing their arms and legs and killed another 100,000 Arabs so

that they could get richer?

SHEEHAN: As Major General Smedley Butler said, War is a racket. It

always has been, and it always will be. And I believe that that's one

of the reasons. It's what Dwight Eisenhower warned us of when he left

office, the military-industrial complex.

MATTHEWS: Yes, but he was warning us about people like Kennedy and

Rockefeller, who wanted to spend more money on the budget on defense

spending. But was he warning us about...

SHEEHAN: Well, if we don't...

MATTHEWS: ... war profiteering...

SHEEHAN: Well, if we don't...

MATTHEWS: Do you really believe that Cheney...

SHEEHAN: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: OK.

SHEEHAN: Cheney, and he was the CEO of Halliburton that got the no-

bid contracts.

MATTHEWS: Right.

SHEEHAN: And it is for strengthening the military-industrial complex,

because they can't build more bombs and tanks and guns if we don't use

them, if we don't deplete them. And that's one of the major reasons

for it. And also, it's for controlling the natural resources. And if

it's not for that, what was it for, Chris? It wasn't for...

MATTHEWS: That's what I'm asking.

SHEEHAN: It wasn't for terrorism because it's just made terrorism

worse. And al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invade.

MATTHEWS: Do you think that Cheney and the president are guilty of

war crimes?

SHEEHAN: Absolutely, for authorizing torture, which is against the

Geneva Conventions and against our own 8th Amendment, and for spying

on

Americans without due process, and for detaining human beings without

due

process, which is against

MATTHEWS: Why do you think the president commuted the sentence of his

former assistant for national security, Scooter Libby?

SHEEHAN: Well, Scooter Libby, the-one of the founders and promoters

of the Project for a New American Century-Scooter Libby-I think

Scooter Libby knows where a lot of the skeletons are buried, that's

for sure.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you about your plans because you've became

active again. You took kind of a breather, didn't you, for a while

there in the anti-war effort?

SHEEHAN: I took a very short, five-week retirement, but I feel rested

and ready to go, yes.

MATTHEWS: Now, you've talked about running against Nancy Pelosi. I'm

out here in San Francisco right now. It's very much an anti-war city,

as you know.

SHEEHAN: Yes. Yes.

MATTHEWS: Feverishly anti-war.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Do you think you can actually take a nick out of her

support, Nancy Pelosi, if you ran against her for the House?

SHEEHAN: Well, I think that we could do very well there, and I've

already gotten just tremendous support from the city of San Francisco,

and really from people all over the country that are disgusted with

the two-party system, disgusted with the spinelessness of the

Democrats, who are-they want to close up their businesses and quit

their jobs and move to San Francisco to help me. And I think it's

going to be a real people's movement. And I think that we will have a

profound effect on the race there...

MATTHEWS: OK.

SHEEHAN: ... if not win it.

MATTHEWS: Let's imagine you're a member of Congress. How would you -

or you're speaker yourself. How would you actually end the war? What

parliamentary, legal moves would you make? These people up on the

Hill are putting their sleeping bags out. They got their cots out to,

all the theatrics.

SHEEHAN: Right.

MATTHEWS: And tomorrow morning, we'll still have a war. Do you have

an actual legislative plan to end the war, Cindy Sheehan?

SHEEHAN: They need to shut off George Bush's funds. They need to

appropriate enough money to bring our troops home, as General Odom

said, as quickly and safely as possible. And we need to appropriate

money for the people of Iraq and for our soldiers and our veterans, to

take care of them. But give him just enough money to bring the troops

home. That's what they have, they have the power of the purse

strings.

MATTHEWS: And what happens...

(CROSSTALK)

SHEEHAN: ... the power of the purse string.

MATTHEWS: Hey, Cindy, I sympathize with that point of view, but what

happens on the other side if you do that? If you do that, then the

other side, the president can say, can't he-the minute there's a

casualty out there, the minute there's a soldier that doesn't get his

weapons-his ammo when he needs it or his fire support or anything

breaks down out there, he'll say it's because the Democrats and the

anti-war people cut off the spending. That's why that soldier died.

What do you do then?

SHEEHAN: We need to appropriate enough money to bring them home,

and...

MATTHEWS: But he's not going to sign that bill.

SHEEHAN: They don't need...

MATTHEWS: You know he's not going to sign that bill!

SHEEHAN: Chris, it's not a bill, it's taking away his money.

Congress can do that. That's the only way that they can stop it.

MATTHEWS: Well, and then he can say...

SHEEHAN: It's not a bill.

MATTHEWS: Right. It's an appropriation. I know about how the Hill

works, Cindy.

SHEEHAN: Right.

MATTHEWS: I know all about it. You're right. The people who oppose

this war can write an appropriation bill. Nancy Pelosi's talked about

that on this show. And it says you can only spend this money to bring

the troops home. Then, the second step, the president vetoes that

bill and says, Send me a clean bill to support the troops. If the

Democrats don't do that, then he blames every calamity over there on

the Democrats, and you, the anti-war people.

SHEEHAN: Well, the Democrats have-the Democrats have not done a good

job of making this George Bush's war, George Bush's calamity. It has

been from the beginning...

MATTHEWS: Well...

SHEEHAN: ... and every death, every innocent Iraqi, every American

soldier is directly related to George Bush.

MATTHEWS: OK.

SHEEHAN: And when Congress gave him...

MATTHEWS: You know why?

SHEEHAN: When Congress gave...

MATTHEWS: You know why they failed?

SHEEHAN: ... him more money-when Congress gave him more money, they

made it their calamity.

MATTHEWS: You know why they failed? Because Chris Dodd, Joe Biden,

Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, a whole batch of them, voted to

support and authorize this war...

SHEEHAN: I know.

MATTHEWS: ... on day one. They've never come back strong enough

against their positions.

SHEEHAN: I agree. I agree. And we need to support people who will

be courageous in supporting our troops, really supporting our troops

by bringing them home.

MATTHEWS: You know what? I like your passion. I'm very careful

about motive, though. Whenever you assign motives to the other side,

you're in a dangerous area because you don't know why they're

supporting this war. You just don't like the war, and that's fair

enough with me. Thank you very much, Cindy Sheehan.

SHEEHAN: Well, I-read "War Is a Racket," Chris.

MATTHEWS: You know, I read so much, but thank you for that

recommendation.

SHEEHAN: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: I'll get to it. Thank you. I mean it.

Rush Limbaugh now has that story mentioning Cindy Sheehan's 'War for

Israel' 'Nightline' email in it:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071907/content/01125110.guest.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/yw67ue

http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

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

Cindy Sheehan Hammered hard in UK Guardian piece

A friend sent me a link from the Guardian newspaper in the UK which

included the Christopher Hitchens' (http://www.slate.com) piece (by his

researcher) about the 'Nightline' email situation with Cindy Sheehan..

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/niall_stanage/2007/07/the_epic_narcissism_of_cindy_s.html

Here is a tinyurl for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/2umfyk

Additional at following URL as well:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/07/the_trashing_of_cindy_sheehan.php

Here is the tinyurl for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/2wx7c5

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:51:22 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: For Karen Houppert/Cindy Sheehan

Dear Ms. Houppert,

Please consider doing a piece about how disingenuous Cindy Sheehan is

being when Chris Matthews (of MSNBC's 'Hardball' broadcast) asked her

what she thought the motivation was for the Iraq war and Cindy put

forth the 'for profit' motive when she wrote that it was for a PNAC

Neocon agenda to benefit Israel in that ABC 'Nightline' email that was

sent on her behalf to the producers at 'Nightline' per her request to

do so (simply do a yahoo.com, Google.com or similar search to see the

Wikipedia write-up about Cindy which mentions my name there as well..)

as I just saw your piece for 'The Nation' as well via the following

URL:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060612/houppert/5

There is war profiteering in most wars, but such wasn't the primary

motivation for Iraq. Securing the realm for Israel in accordance with

the 'A Clean Break' was (again, one can read about the 'A Clean Break'

from Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book via the following URL):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769

Here are two URLs (take a look at the 'Hardball' transcript below

which includes the interview that Cindy did with Chris Matthews

yesterday):

http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/sidebar/2124791/

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-sheehan-mother-of-spc-casey.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/dga3w

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19830397/

Well, Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist, probably the most

famous. Her son, Casey, was killed during his service in the Iraq

war. She's currently on a 17-city, two-and-a-half-week tour called

"Journey for Humanity," protesting against President Bush and actually

calling for his impeachment. Cindy Sheehan joins us now from

Charlotte, North Carolina. Thank you very much for joining us, Cindy

Sheehan.

CINDY SHEEHAN, SON DIED IN IRAQ: Hi, Chris. Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Thank you. Well, let me ask you about impeachment. What

are the grounds? I mean, imagine you're a member calling for

impeachment on the floor of the Senate, or conviction. What would you

say?

SHEEHAN: Well, I would say the lies and the deceptions that led to an

illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, that has led to the deaths of

hundreds of thousands of people, I would say breaking the FISA laws by

spying on Americans without warrants that George Bush admitted to, I

would say the inadequate and tragic response to Katrina. I would say

for authorizing torture. I would say for authorizing consolidating

executive power, all the power in one branch. And I think there are

many grounds that impeachment could be started on.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that we have waged an aggressive war in

Iraq?

SHEEHAN: Well, I think that it was illegal and immoral. There were

no weapons of mass destructions. There was no connection between

Saddam and 9/11, and all evidence has shown, especially this week,

that what we're doing is strengthening al Qaeda and strengthening

hatred against us for occupying the country and destroying a country

that was no threat to us.

MATTHEWS: Why do you think President Bush, Vice President Cheney,

Paul Wolfowitz, the other hawks in this administration-why do you

think they took us to war?

SHEEHAN: Well, I think it was a lot to do with oil. It was a lot to

do with destabilizing that region, which they have done very

thoroughly. The Iraqi refugee crisis has made the entire region

compromised there. And I think it was for profit. I mean, it's for

Halliburton. It's for Blackwater. It's for Standard Oil. It's for

the war profiteers. And that's why war is usually waged.

MATTHEWS: You believe that this was-this war was fought because

people in the White House decided to make some money for their pals in

business? You really believe that?

SHEEHAN: I believe that that...

MATTHEWS: That they sent...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: That they sent 3,600 Americans to their death and 20,000-

some losing their arms and legs and killed another 100,000 Arabs so

that they could get richer?

SHEEHAN: As Major General Smedley Butler said, War is a racket. It

always has been, and it always will be. And I believe that that's one

of the reasons. It's what Dwight Eisenhower warned us of when he left

office, the military-industrial complex.

MATTHEWS: Yes, but he was warning us about people like Kennedy and

Rockefeller, who wanted to spend more money on the budget on defense

spending. But was he warning us about...

SHEEHAN: Well, if we don't...

MATTHEWS: ... war profiteering...

SHEEHAN: Well, if we don't...

MATTHEWS: Do you really believe that Cheney...

SHEEHAN: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: OK.

SHEEHAN: Cheney, and he was the CEO of Halliburton that got the no-

bid contracts.

MATTHEWS: Right.

SHEEHAN: And it is for strengthening the military-industrial complex,

because they can't build more bombs and tanks and guns if we don't use

them, if we don't deplete them. And that's one of the major reasons

for it. And also, it's for controlling the natural resources. And if

it's not for that, what was it for, Chris? It wasn't for...

MATTHEWS: That's what I'm asking.

SHEEHAN: It wasn't for terrorism because it's just made terrorism

worse. And al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invade.

MATTHEWS: Do you think that Cheney and the president are guilty of

war crimes?

SHEEHAN: Absolutely, for authorizing torture, which is against the

Geneva Conventions and against our own 8th Amendment, and for spying

on

Americans without due process, and for detaining human beings without

due

process, which is against

MATTHEWS: Why do you think the president commuted the sentence of his

former assistant for national security, Scooter Libby?

SHEEHAN: Well, Scooter Libby, the-one of the founders and promoters

of the Project for a New American Century-Scooter Libby-I think

Scooter Libby knows where a lot of the skeletons are buried, that's

for sure.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you about your plans because you've became

active again. You took kind of a breather, didn't you, for a while

there in the anti-war effort?

SHEEHAN: I took a very short, five-week retirement, but I feel rested

and ready to go, yes.

MATTHEWS: Now, you've talked about running against Nancy Pelosi. I'm

out here in San Francisco right now. It's very much an anti-war city,

as you know.

SHEEHAN: Yes. Yes.

MATTHEWS: Feverishly anti-war.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Do you think you can actually take a nick out of her

support, Nancy Pelosi, if you ran against her for the House?

SHEEHAN: Well, I think that we could do very well there, and I've

already gotten just tremendous support from the city of San Francisco,

and really from people all over the country that are disgusted with

the two-party system, disgusted with the spinelessness of the

Democrats, who are-they want to close up their businesses and quit

their jobs and move to San Francisco to help me. And I think it's

going to be a real people's movement. And I think that we will have a

profound effect on the race there...

MATTHEWS: OK.

SHEEHAN: ... if not win it.

MATTHEWS: Let's imagine you're a member of Congress. How would you -

or you're speaker yourself. How would you actually end the war? What

parliamentary, legal moves would you make? These people up on the

Hill are putting their sleeping bags out. They got their cots out to,

all the theatrics.

SHEEHAN: Right.

MATTHEWS: And tomorrow morning, we'll still have a war. Do you have

an actual legislative plan to end the war, Cindy Sheehan?

SHEEHAN: They need to shut off George Bush's funds. They need to

appropriate enough money to bring our troops home, as General Odom

said, as quickly and safely as possible. And we need to appropriate

money for the people of Iraq and for our soldiers and our veterans, to

take care of them. But give him just enough money to bring the troops

home. That's what they have, they have the power of the purse

strings.

MATTHEWS: And what happens...

(CROSSTALK)

SHEEHAN: ... the power of the purse string.

MATTHEWS: Hey, Cindy, I sympathize with that point of view, but what

happens on the other side if you do that? If you do that, then the

other side, the president can say, can't he-the minute there's a

casualty out there, the minute there's a soldier that doesn't get his

weapons-his ammo when he needs it or his fire support or anything

breaks down out there, he'll say it's because the Democrats and the

anti-war people cut off the spending. That's why that soldier died.

What do you do then?

SHEEHAN: We need to appropriate enough money to bring them home,

and...

MATTHEWS: But he's not going to sign that bill.

SHEEHAN: They don't need...

MATTHEWS: You know he's not going to sign that bill!

SHEEHAN: Chris, it's not a bill, it's taking away his money.

Congress can do that. That's the only way that they can stop it.

MATTHEWS: Well, and then he can say...

SHEEHAN: It's not a bill.

MATTHEWS: Right. It's an appropriation. I know about how the Hill

works, Cindy.

SHEEHAN: Right.

MATTHEWS: I know all about it. You're right. The people who oppose

this war can write an appropriation bill. Nancy Pelosi's talked about

that on this show. And it says you can only spend this money to bring

the troops home. Then, the second step, the president vetoes that

bill and says, Send me a clean bill to support the troops. If the

Democrats don't do that, then he blames every calamity over there on

the Democrats, and you, the anti-war people.

SHEEHAN: Well, the Democrats have-the Democrats have not done a good

job of making this George Bush's war, George Bush's calamity. It has

been from the beginning...

MATTHEWS: Well...

SHEEHAN: ... and every death, every innocent Iraqi, every American

soldier is directly related to George Bush.

MATTHEWS: OK.

SHEEHAN: And when Congress gave him...

MATTHEWS: You know why?

SHEEHAN: When Congress gave...

MATTHEWS: You know why they failed?

SHEEHAN: ... him more money-when Congress gave him more money, they

made it their calamity.

MATTHEWS: You know why they failed? Because Chris Dodd, Joe Biden,

Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, a whole batch of them, voted to

support and authorize this war...

SHEEHAN: I know.

MATTHEWS: ... on day one. They've never come back strong enough

against their positions.

SHEEHAN: I agree. I agree. And we need to support people who will

be courageous in supporting our troops, really supporting our troops

by bringing them home.

MATTHEWS: You know what? I like your passion. I'm very careful

about motive, though. Whenever you assign motives to the other side,

you're in a dangerous area because you don't know why they're

supporting this war. You just don't like the war, and that's fair

enough with me. Thank you very much, Cindy Sheehan.

SHEEHAN: Well, I-read "War Is a Racket," Chris.

MATTHEWS: You know, I read so much, but thank you for that

recommendation.

SHEEHAN: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: I'll get to it. Thank you. I mean it.

On Jul 10, 1:01 pm, "Harry Dope" <HHhatesAmer...@aol.com> wrote:

> SheehanLaunches Pelosi Challenge

>

> By PAUL J. WEBER

> Associated Press Writer

> CRAWFORD, Texas -CindySheehanbid farewell to her former "peace camp" near

> President Bush's ranch and began a nearly two-week trek Tuesday toward

> Washington, D.C., with her sights set on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

>

> Sheehan, a Californian, officially announced that she intends to run as an

> independent against Pelosi in 2008 if the San Francisco congresswoman

> doesn't move to impeach Bush by July 23, the day she expects to reach

> Washington.

>

> "I know what Californians care about,"Sheehansaid. "They don't care about

> the ruling power elite."

>

> Sheehanfirst told The Associated Press on Sunday about her plans to

> challenge the top-ranking Democrat. She made it official Tuesday at Camp

> Casey, named after her 24-year-old son, whose death in Iraq first ledSheehanto set up camp in Crawford in 2005 to demand a meeting with Bush,

> who was on vacation at the time.

>

> Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Tuesday that Pelosi's "focus is on ending

> the war in Iraq."

>

> "She believes that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring

> them home safely and soon," Daly wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

> "Democrats will continue to hold the Bush Administration accountable by

> having votes in July to change course in Iraq; to responsibly redeploy our

> troops; and to refocus our effort on protecting Americans from terrorism."

>

> ButSheehansaid that's not enough.

>

> "You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to

> wage this war," she said Tuesday. "You're not supporting them. You're

> keeping them in harm's way."

>

> Sheehansays Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the

> public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention

> with the torture of detainees and crossed the line by commuting the prison

> sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

>

> After her announcement,Sheehanand about 20 anti-war protesters began their

> 13-day trip with a symbolic march to the edge of Crawford, where a billboard

> of Bush and first lady Laura Bush welcomes visitors.

>

> Sheehan, who turned 50 on Tuesday, stunned fellow anti-war activists in May

> by announcing that she would sell her 5-acre Crawford protest site. She said

> then that she felt her efforts had been in vain and that she had endured

> hatred and smear tactics from the left as well as from the right.

>

> --

> Eight years before 9/11, on Feb. 26, 1993, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida

> terrorist network declared war against the United States with a deadly

> attack on the World Trade Center. Al-Qaida continued to wage war on the U.S.

> throughout the Clinton administration, attacking Khobar Towers in 1996, two

> U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.

Rush Limbaugh now has that story mentioning Cindy Sheehan's 'War for

Israel' 'Nightline' email in it:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071907/content/01125110.guest.html

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/yw67ue

Here is a blog about such which just came out by the co-writer of the

book about Cindy:

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/DailyFile/sheehan_gathering_of_eagles_patriots_are_nazis/

Here is a tinyURL for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/35wjq5

http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

On Jul 19, 5:09 pm, NOMOREWAR_FORISR...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Rush Limbaugh now has that story mentioning Cindy Sheehan's 'War for

> Israel' 'Nightline' email in it:

>

> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071907/content/01125110.g...

>

> Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

>

> http://tinyurl.com/yw67ue

>

> http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL@yahoo.com wrote:

> Cindy Sheehan/'Nightline' email situation mentioned in UK Guardian

> piece

>

Ya know, it doesn't matter.

Long before the Democrats and the media starting tearing Bush's

justification for war apart, Cindy Sheehan was out there asking why her

son was killed in Iraq and Bush couldn't answer her question.

It was that question that did more harm to the Bush presidency than any

other. Bush never rose above 50% after that.

The people who were most wrong about the war (including Christopher

Hitchens and Rush Limbaugh) are more likely to attack the people who

were right. That's to be expected.

Limbaugh listeners don't listen to Limbaugh because he's right but

because they need a moral and intellectual justification for being

consistently wrong.

Has Limbaugh ever been right about anything important?

The Guardian piece was written by someone who was wrong about Iraq and

wrong about WMD. Of course he attacks Cindy Sheehan. It's easier than

admitting he was too stupid to see Bush was lying his ass off.

--

Impeach Bush

http://zzpat.bravehost.com

Impeach Search Engine

http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm