CRC Just Wants to Be Friends With the Board
Many times over the past year I have found myself copying and pasting entire articles from The Gazette into blog posts. They have just been really good about covering this story. The controversy has two sides, and neither side has any grounds for saying that The Gazette has been unfair to them.
And here they go again. This morning's paper had a good story about the new citizens committee:
First of all: nice headline. I like the ring of that phrase, "Ineligible nominee rejected by board." That is what happened.
Well, they could have said it the opposite way, they could have said "Ineligible nominee accepted by board," since PFOX never nominated three people, but they put Peter Sprigg on the committee anyway.
Look at that stuff, threatening another lawsuit. Ah, they love it.
Hey, I just remembered something.
Back in January -- the thirteenth, to be precise -- the CRC administrator sent this message to the rest of them:
(You can read this and other hair-curling dialogue in a Google cache HERE. It is fascinating.)
Point Number Two is clear. They don't sue because they have a case, they sue because it "gets people's attention - merit or no merit."
They're just suers at heart. Tramps like us, baby we were born to sue. Sue for the money, sue for the show, sue to get ready, now go cat go. I can't stop suing you ... Please, somebody stop me.
OK, thanks.
More from The Gazette:
No kidding, Sherlock.
Hurting your chances of meeting with the board, eh? Hmmm, how about going to every meeting they have and talking about rimming and anal sex and eating poop, what would that do to your chances? What about starting a group to recall all of them, would that make them want to meet with you? How about suing them, taking tens of thousands of dollars of money that could have gone of our kids' education, and then refusing to follow the rules -- is that what you do to make them want to meet with you?
Hey, remember when some school board members, including Sharon Cox, were going to go out to Germantown to meet with them? What was that headline? Oh yeah, I remember: Cox avoids Germantown meeting after receiving threats. I was at the board meeting where Michelle Turner had to apologize to the board for CRC members threatening them.
It's easy to see, they are really concerned about making a good impression on the board.
And here they go again. This morning's paper had a good story about the new citizens committee:
The county school board has named 14 of 15 members to an advisory committee that will review sex education lessons, a move that has one group considering legal action.
The board did not name a member to fill a seat reserved for Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.
"That seat on the committee will remain vacant until CRC submits a qualified nominee," board President Patricia B. O’Neill said in a prepared statement released at Monday night's meeting in Rockville.
CRC’s board of directors plans to meet Thursday to consider whether to go back to court over an agreement that settled a federal lawsuit against the school board by CRC and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, said John R. Garza, a Rockville attorney who is CRC's vice president. Sex ed committee almost full: Ineligible nominee rejected by board
First of all: nice headline. I like the ring of that phrase, "Ineligible nominee rejected by board." That is what happened.
Well, they could have said it the opposite way, they could have said "Ineligible nominee accepted by board," since PFOX never nominated three people, but they put Peter Sprigg on the committee anyway.
Look at that stuff, threatening another lawsuit. Ah, they love it.
Hey, I just remembered something.
Back in January -- the thirteenth, to be precise -- the CRC administrator sent this message to the rest of them:
The only thing that is going to get their complete attention is:
1. Continuing outrage streaming in to their castle headquarters
2. John Garza proceeding immediatley with his lawsuit. (Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis)
3. 50,000 plus signatures between the paper petition and the on-line petition.
4. Tabulation of all the outrageous things said about us and this issue, and posted on both web sites.
5. Massive email campaign to inform and INFLAME.
In other words, aggressive tactics.
(You can read this and other hair-curling dialogue in a Google cache HERE. It is fascinating.)
Point Number Two is clear. They don't sue because they have a case, they sue because it "gets people's attention - merit or no merit."
They're just suers at heart. Tramps like us, baby we were born to sue. Sue for the money, sue for the show, sue to get ready, now go cat go. I can't stop suing you ... Please, somebody stop me.
OK, thanks.
More from The Gazette:
Garza said there was "a very good chance" that the group would ask a county Circuit Court judge or U.S. District Court Judge Alexander Williams Jr. to enforce the agreement as CRC sees it. In May, Williams issued the order stopping the revised curriculum from being taught.
"It may be that [CRC leaders] decide to capitulate and that it's not worth fighting with the board," Garza said. "Because there are plenty of other members of CRC who are qualified to serve."
Garza said the group wants to sit down with the school board to resolve their differences. More litigation "will hurt our chances of ever getting to meet with them," he said.
No kidding, Sherlock.
Hurting your chances of meeting with the board, eh? Hmmm, how about going to every meeting they have and talking about rimming and anal sex and eating poop, what would that do to your chances? What about starting a group to recall all of them, would that make them want to meet with you? How about suing them, taking tens of thousands of dollars of money that could have gone of our kids' education, and then refusing to follow the rules -- is that what you do to make them want to meet with you?
Hey, remember when some school board members, including Sharon Cox, were going to go out to Germantown to meet with them? What was that headline? Oh yeah, I remember: Cox avoids Germantown meeting after receiving threats. I was at the board meeting where Michelle Turner had to apologize to the board for CRC members threatening them.
It's easy to see, they are really concerned about making a good impression on the board.
posted by JimK at 9:10 PM
42 Comments:
Maybe Johnny Garza will send BOE one of his "threatening letters..."
Yeah that will work just like it worked (NOT) on other folks he and Michelle have tried to pull that "threatening letter routine" on.
Wonder if there is music to go along with their tap dance routine of threatening everyone who does not do their bidding.
They fell a little short on their plan to get 50,000 petition signatures. They got less than 10% of that so apparently their tactic to INFLAME the public wasn't too successful. Let's not forget that correspondence sent to the MC BOE favors the revised curriculum by a factor of more than 4 to 1.
If you want to INFLAME the public in Montgomery County these days, all you have to do is mention the lawsuit against the health curriculum. The majority of county residents are outraged that the radical religious right in the form of Dobson-spawned PFOX and Falwell-spawned Liberty Council, took $36,000.00 in MCPS money intended for their children's educational needs.
Christine
"First of all: nice headline. I like the ring of that phrase, "Ineligible nominee rejected by board." That is what happened."
No it didn't. The board reached a settlement and people who were eligible at that point are the ones specified by the agreement.
"Well, they could have said it the opposite way, they could have said "Ineligible nominee accepted by board," since PFOX never nominated three people, but they put Peter Sprigg on the committee anyway."
It's all political, Jim. They knew they'd never win a battle with the Family Research Council.
"They don't sue because they have a case, they sue because it "gets people's attention - merit or no merit.""
Hmmm...Why did they win then? Are you saying the judge is a moron?
"Garza said there was "a very good chance" that the group would ask a county Circuit Court judge or U.S. District Court Judge Alexander Williams Jr. to enforce the agreement as CRC sees it."
We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces and "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!"
"It may be that [CRC leaders] decide to capitulate and that it's not worth fighting with the board," Garza said. "Because there are plenty of other members of CRC who are qualified to serve."
#w&*#@%*&@%*#@*&@ !
"No kidding, Sherlock."
jIM, i wOULDN'T BE INSULTING ANYONE ELSE'S INTELLIGENCE, IF i WERE YOU.
"Hurting your chances of meeting with the board, eh? Hmmm, how about going to every meeting they have and talking about rimming and anal sex and eating poop, what would that do to your chances?"
Someone had to point out what the board was proposing to teach as normal.
"What about starting a group to recall all of them, would that make them want to meet with you?"
This board will learn to respect its constituents at the next election. They're elected officials not the House of Lords.
"How about suing them, taking tens of thousands of dollars of money that could have gone of our kids' education,"
Can we start a list of all the money being wasted by the school board?
"and then refusing to follow the rules --"
That's what the board did by weaseling out of the settlement.
"Hey, remember when some school board members, including Sharon Cox, were going to go out to Germantown to meet with them? What was that headline? Oh yeah, I remember: Cox avoids Germantown meeting after receiving threats. I was at the board meeting where Michelle Turner had to apologize to the board for CRC members threatening them."
Yeah, I remember that. The Gazette retracted the story. To my knowledge, there was no indication that CRC members did the threatening. You might be close to slander here.
"It's easy to see, they are really concerned about making a good impression on the board."
Well, we know how to make a good impression: Tell them they've done a good job and you agree with everything they say. Then they'll put you on their "constructive criticism" committee. Right, Jimbo.
Kay,
######## is a choice.
Anon said...
Yeah, I remember that. The Gazette retracted the story. To my knowledge, there was no indication that CRC members did the threatening. You might be close to slander here.
*************************
Please refer to:
January 2005
"we are deadly serious"
At the last Board of Education meeting, (Tuesday, 12/11), Michelle Turner, President of the RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard group, offered public comments, and apologized to Sharon Cox and the Board for the behavior of some of the recall group's supporters. Apparently, threatening messages were posted on their message board, and the BOE also received some pretty nasty phone calls and letters.
It may be that Michelle Turner knew that the very next day, Wednesday, 12/12, the Gazette was to print an article titled Cox avoids Germantown meeting after receiving threats:
Members of the Board of Education canceled their appearance at Monday's Germantown Citizens Association meeting on the proposed sex education curriculum after receiving threats and slanderous comments on an anti-curriculum Web site.
(See Jim Kennedy's post for more on that story.)
Yesterday, on the Einstein High School listserve, in responding to criticism about threats being made at the recall group's site, Michelle offered this:
The CRC website was changed due to the nastiness/threats being posted
not only towards the CRC but the BoE as well. We tried rules of decorum to no avail.
Michelle Turner
Now, the interesting thing about that statement, is Michelle's use of the word "we". I wondered (and I asked)...who is "we"? I was curious because it sounded to me like she was trying to say that the leadership of the recall group "tried rules of decorum." And in fact, that is what she meant, because she responded to my question saying that "we" referred to her group's Executive Committee.
Fair enough. So the leaders were trying to reign in some of the more hotheaded fringe supporters?
Or...
Maybe it was some of the leaders themselves who, at best, sought to stir up an already angry crowd with what could be construed as some veiled threats of their own.
Here's a screenshot of a message posted to the recall site's message board by none other than Steve Fisher, their official Spokesperson and Media/PR guy. The use of the word deadly is pretty intense:
(Note—Click on the image to see a larger version.)
And I come back to Michelle's word decorum. Interesting word, although I'm not sure I'd use it to describe this post, again, from Mr. Fisher:
Did he have to call the BOE animals and lunatics? Hmm...decorum.
And what's really hilarious, is that while in yet another post he continues in this decorous vein by calling the BOE "knuckleheads", Mr. Fisher explains that his children do not attend Montgomery County Public Schools. If his kids aren't even in Montgomery County Public Schools, for the life of me, I can't understand why he's so irrate...or why he's the recall group's spokesperson. Maybe they like his committment to decorum.
That's brilliant, Kay.
Still, after all your rambling, we still don't see any threats being made by the CRC. They had a public forum so anyone could make those threats.
If the CRC were planning to physically threaten the board, we'll all know it since Jim somehow, magically, through no effort of his own, came into possession of all their private e-mail messages.
A. CRC won nothing- the judge gave a 10 day temporary restraining order on piloting the curriculum and MCPS decided to settle. A TRO is not a judgement- it is a time frame in which to do further review and paper gathering.
B. CRC is good at saying or doing one thing and then claiming they never said or did it. However,they must also not know that their initial actions and statements are captured by the letters/e:mails they write and the news articles in which they are quoted.
But I do need to correct Jim. CRC wants to be Friends with the Board- no, Johnny Garza wants more- he said in public comments to the BOE "WE LOVE YOU".
Anon said...
we'll all know it since Jim somehow, magically, through no effort of his own, came into possession of all their private e-mail messages.
****************
I do no think Jim can control what is in public domain via CRC placing it in a public domain.
Jim is great guy and all that but even he did not invent the internet. Hmm....didn't Al Gore invent the internet????? Maybe Al Gore sent it to him...yeah that's it...
Anon-
Ben Patton, certainly a CRCer, made some threatening remarks to the BOE two or three meetings ago. I do not think the CRC is planning to actually do anything physical(what, like Retta smacking Steve Abrams or Ruth Jacobs throwing one of her little chart tripods at Sharon Cox?). My sense of the more recent CRC remarks are these people claiming to be warning BOE of their "immense" political power. The original CRC board did have many rude, nasty and threatening comments- but then so do Yahoo Boards. Would any of these nuts actually come to a BOE member or their home? Political activists of all sorts have done so to homes of doctors and to homes of politicians.
Anon, I'm not going to refute all your refutations, since it would simply be tedious and obvious. Let me hit a couple of them, though.
Retta Brown is ineligible by the board's rules. The settlement agreement clearly says that the board will select committee members. It is pure hubris for the CRC to assume that they would not have to follow the official process. They can go back to a judge with this if they wish to be told by an authority. The board gave them everything they agreed to.
I don't believe the school board is worried about the Family Research Council -- with elections coming, that kind of fight would only be good for them.
You have no reason to conclude that I think the judge was a moron. The LC lawyers were quite crafty, filing the complaint at the last minute, giving MCPS no time to make a counterargument, confusing the judge about what was in the curriculum and what was not. It was good lawyering, and a judge who didn't have time to contemplate what was put in front of him.
I think it is very interesting that Willie would record a song like that with somebody like Toby Keith. Very interesting, don't you think?
As far as your comment about "what the board was proposing to teach as normal," there was nothing about whether anything was "normal" or not. If you mean homosexuality, it is normal for some percentage of the population to be gay, and state law does requiring teaching about it.
And the Gazette did not retract that story. As I recall (it's offline now), they published a follow-up that said that the threats were not the reason Sharon Cox bailed out of the meeting, in their Germantown online edition only -- you can see them whining about it in the message cache I linked to. It was certainly not a retraction, and did not say there were no threats. I saw Michelle apologize to the board with my own eyes, and I think Kay just posted information here that makes it clear that they were out of line, and knew it.
As far as TTF making a good impression on the board, we have no need to do that. We're not asking to meet with them. We supported the curriculum they voted in, but they know lots of our members from other controversies, where they do not always take the board's side, not by a long shot.
Oh, and as far as their email, look at the link in this post. That email is just sitting there in a Google cache, I actually came across this link by accident after Steina Walter said something in public comments and I wanted to find out who she was. Though other chunks of it did appear in our inboxes a few months back, unsolicited.
JimK
thanks for not being tedious, Jim
Hey, while we're at it: What about the NARAL rep? Is the board considering teaching abortion as a birth control method? This may turn out to be their biggest mistake yet.
"Oh, and as far as their email, look at the link in this post. That email is just sitting there in a Google cache, I actually came across this link by accident after Steina Walter said something in public comments and I wanted to find out who she was. Though other chunks of it did appear in our inboxes a few months back, unsolicited."
Oh, and did you see any nefarious plots in there? Plans to assault anyone or anything like that?
Lots.
"'They don't sue because they have a case, they sue because it "gets people's attention - merit or no merit."'
Hmmm...Why did they win then?"
Did CRC/PFOX win? Nope!
Actually Anon, you got it right when you said, "The board reached a settlement..."
I'd suggest you ask an attorney about the difference between "winning" a lawsuit and "settling" one.
Aunt Bea
"Lots."
One example of the plots to commit physical violence, please.
"I'd suggest you ask an attorney about the difference between "winning" a lawsuit and "settling" one."
Jim, when the other side forfeited and met our demands, we won.
Jim
Could you tell us something about your contacts with GLSEN and other radical gay groups?
Anon said...Is the board considering teaching abortion as a birth control method?
****************
Abortion is a personal choice..period.
I personally do not support abortion being used by anyone as a birth control method as that is what teaching about contraceptives and even abstinence is all about under a full comprehensive health curriculum.
But people are free to make choices for their own bodies and health.
Abstinence in the condom video, etc. was promoted over and over as the safest method to avoid pregnancy 100%. If kids not not abstain from sex they need to know how to protect themselves from pregnancy, STIs etc..
Abortion is murder, period. It's a simple moral calculation: what's more important- the pleasure and convenience of the strong or the life of the weak? A society where it is OK to kill your children if they are too burdensome, is not a civilization.
Still, the question is begged. Why is NARAL represented on this committee?
Anons said....
Still, the question is begged. Why is NARAL represented on this committee?
Well folks might ask the same for PFOX and CRC(if they ever get their act together to get that seat waiting for them).
"Well folks might ask the same for PFOX and CRC(if they ever get their act together to get that seat waiting for them)."
They could ask and they'd be told that those organizations have missions that concern the work of the CAC.
What is this pro-murder group's concern here? Anybody know? David?
Dana? Ms. O'neill?
Anon, you're getting a little fancy with the wordplay there. Nobody said "physical violence." I don't know what the threats were, but they were enough to make the news and elicit an official apology from the president of CRC.
As far as NARAL's presence on the committee, I don't know, we didn't choose. I do notice that their web site prominently features a link that says "Support responsible sex education in our schools!" So I guess they're interested in that.
As far as your comments about abortion, of course it is easy to say "abortion is murder." But lots of things are murder. I had to give do-not-resuscitate orders for my own mother in the hospital, it sounds like you might call me a murderer. I personally tend to have a low opinion of people who reduce difficult decisions to three-word slogans. Nobody likes abortion, but there are times when it is necessary, and that is not for the government to choose, it seems to me. If you tell me you are absolutely opposed to all forms of war, I will discuss this further with you, but if you support that form of murder, while calling the other immoral, I don't want to get involved.
JimK
"Anon, you're getting a little fancy with the wordplay there. Nobody said "physical violence." I don't know what the threats were, but they were enough to make the news and elicit an official apology from the president of CRC."
Jim, the story at the time was that Cox feared for her safety. The Gazette retracted it. Turner apologized because the comments were on a forum set up by CRC. But just to clear up any confusion, I think we can now say that you have no indication that any member of CRC physically threatened anybody. Please don't make the insinuations again.
"As far as NARAL's presence on the committee, I don't know, we didn't choose. I do notice that their web site prominently features a link that says "Support responsible sex education in our schools!" So I guess they're interested in that.
As far as your comments about abortion, of course it is easy to say "abortion is murder." But lots of things are murder. I had to give do-not-resuscitate orders for my own mother in the hospital, it sounds like you might call me a murderer. I personally tend to have a low opinion of people who reduce difficult decisions to three-word slogans. Nobody likes abortion, but there are times when it is necessary, and that is not for the government to choose, it seems to me. If you tell me you are absolutely opposed to all forms of war, I will discuss this further with you, but if you support that form of murder, while calling the other immoral, I don't want to get involved."
It's nice you don't "like" abortion but it's a more serious matter than just what your personal preference is. Abortion has a victim. I don't all the details about your mother, but I assume you were, at least, trying to figure out the right thing to do. War, if just, like the war in Iraq, is necessary to restrain much greater levels of evil. Those who commit abortion murders do so for the same reason a thug on the street does- to make their own life easier.
NARAL supports abortion at will, not when it's "necessary".
Anonymous said: "Those who commit abortion murders do so for the same reason a thug on the street does- to make their own life easier.
NARAL supports abortion at will, not when it's "necessary"."
And who are you to decide what is "necessary" and what is "at will"? Abortions are done because they NEED to be done - either because a woman cannot financially, physically, or emotionally afford a child. It is a difficult choice, but one that needs to be left to a woman and her doctor.
I will also say that the more people know about birth control and how to use it consistently and correctly, the less often abortions will be necessary. If someone is against abortion, I would think that they would want people to know as much as they can about ways to avoid pregnancy.
Strangely enough, though, many of the people who are against abortion are also against teaching people how to use birth control methods correctly and consistenly. This leads me to believe that they don't actually care about preventing abortions so much as controlling other people's bodies and their access to information. Often, this control has to do with religious beliefs about how women should behave in society. If these people were really concerned about saving lives and preventing abortions, they would be doing everything they could to make sure that people knew exactly how to use a condom to prevent HIV and other STDs and how all methods of birth control work so that pregnancy and therefore, abortion can be avoided.
The information learned in sex ed classes are not meant solely to teach teens about birth control so that they can run out and have tons of promiscuous teenage sex, it is taught so that when these people become adults and have adult relationships they have acquired the knowledge to know how to protect themselves and their bodies.
So you support murder when it furthers a political end that you agree with...
Your comment that I was trying to figure out the right thing to do, is exactly the target. Nobody wants an abortion, but people have to figure out the right thing to do. That's not for the government to decide.
JimK
There is an Andrea on here that isn't me. I am Andrear
Andrea Kline
"So you support murder when it furthers a political end that you agree with..."
No, when it furthers a moral end. Stopping a dictator whose family and himself are terrorizing, raping and killing innocent people in his country and who is paying suicide bombers in other countries is a good example.
"Your comment that I was trying to figure out the right thing to do, is exactly the target. Nobody wants an abortion, but people have to figure out the right thing to do. That's not for the government to decide."
Many people think abortion is no big deal. NARAL is their friend. Why shouldn't the government be as concerned about these murder victims as any other?
"And who are you to decide what is "necessary" and what is "at will"? Abortions are done because they NEED to be done - either because a woman cannot financially, physically, or emotionally afford a child. It is a difficult choice, but one that needs to be left to a woman and her doctor."
If the child could talk, they might say who are you to decide I can be killed before I see the light of day. Nice for the doctor and the woman to discuss but who represents the victim here.
A thug on the street may kill you and take your money because he can't financially, physically and emotionally do otherwise. Do you deserve protection? Why not kids? Because they can't vote? Because they can't speak? Because they're not strong?
"Stopping a dictator ..."
OK, I have seen the polls, where there is still a small number of Americans who believe this. I always wondered who it was. Now I guess I know.
If you think the war in Iraq is justified, you'll justify anything. You don't have anything against murder of innocent people, your comments about abortion are hypocritical.
JimK
I am the other Andrea. I am Andrea without the R :)
"OK, I have seen the polls, where there is still a small number of Americans who believe this. I always wondered who it was. Now I guess I know.
If you think the war in Iraq is justified, you'll justify anything. You don't have anything against murder of innocent people, your comments about abortion are hypocritical."
Funny how the polls always say things like that until just before an election.
Read the lead editorial in the right-wing militarist newspaper, the Washington Post, today. They agree the war was necessary. Their only quibble is that Bush should explain why better to the public.
Who knows how many lives were saved when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait, when we kept him from flying over the Kurds, when we chased him and his despicable sons into a hole?
Look, you lousy traitor, do me a favor: Go up to the Kensington library and check out a copy of Toby Keith's Greatest Hits Vol 2 and listen to track 5: Courtesy of the Red White and Blue. We'll just call it reparative therapy.
"Look, you lousy traitor, do me a
favor: Go up to the Kensington
library and check out a copy of
Toby Keith's Greatest Hits Vol 2
and listen to track 5: Courtesy of
the Red White and Blue. We'll just
call it reparative therapy."
Ah yes. There it is. CRC non-
slanderous scientific logic in a
nutshell just sitting right
for all the world to see.
Thanks, Anon. :-)
AnonamI
"Ah yes. There it is. CRC non-
slanderous scientific logic in a
nutshell just sitting right
for all the world to see."
I'm not in the CRC. This is no more than non-scientific than Jim saying that US soldiers in Iraq are murderers of the innocent. They have fought bravely. There have been deaths of innocent people but it was not the the purpose of the war and the number of innocent lives saved greatly outweighs those.
Like I said, read the Post editorial today if you think this is a position no liberals hold.
Anon, the first half of that editorial is an acknowledgement of the sacrifices of our soldiers, now that 2,000 have been killed, with some attempt to make it seem justified. The second half, very carefully worded, analyzes the strife between ethnic groups in Iraq, which knowledgeable analysts predicted before we attacked there, and notes how different the situation would have been "had he [Bush] been more honest with the country from the beginning."
To destroy a country and then complain because the locals are fighting among themselves ... what did they think was going to happen? Oh yeah, dancing in the streets.
The "number of innocent lives saved" that you mention ... oh, never mind. Go ahead and believe that. And this is classic: "There have been deaths of innocent people but it was not the the purpose of the war ..." Like, yeah, it was a big surprise, people getting killed. Not murder, just innocent people killed, collateral damage.
Oh, and that stupid Toby Keith song ... I'll bet he's glad he got your money for that CD. You can get just as puffed-up as you want to, calling patriotic Americans traitors and everything. Seen it before, not impressed.
JimK
"Anon, the first half of that editorial is an acknowledgement of the sacrifices of our soldiers, now that 2,000 have been killed, with some attempt to make it seem justified. The second half, very carefully worded, analyzes the strife between ethnic groups in Iraq, which knowledgeable analysts predicted before we attacked there, and notes how different the situation would have been "had he [Bush] been more honest with the country from the beginning."
To destroy a country and then complain because the locals are fighting among themselves ... what did they think was going to happen? Oh yeah, dancing in the streets.
The "number of innocent lives saved" that you mention ... oh, never mind. Go ahead and believe that. And this is classic: "There have been deaths of innocent people but it was not the the purpose of the war ..." Like, yeah, it was a big surprise, people getting killed. Not murder, just innocent people killed, collateral damage.
Oh, and that stupid Toby Keith song ... I'll bet he's glad he got your money for that CD. You can get just as puffed-up as you want to, calling patriotic Americans traitors and everything. Seen it before, not impressed."
Well, back to the original topic, killing a child is not the moral equivalent of freeing a country from a murderous tyrant with unfortunate collateral damage- is it?
And who told you that you were patriotic? Norman Lear?
The millions of people who have attended peace rallies against the war in Iraq over the past two and a half years tell JimK he's patriotic.
Quaker MCPS Mom
We live in the United States of America where disagreeing with the gov't is still our right. How dare you suggest that people who oppose this war are traitors? George Bush and his administration are no more "America" than anyone else. I love this country- it was a haven for my grandparents and my father and uncles fought in WWII in Europe and the Pacific. This war is wrong and to me saying so publicly is part of my love for America -for us to do what is right.
Tonight, I saw the faces of the fallen in the Post and two of the rows on the second page were largely made up of children- that's right - 18,19 and 20- the age and younger of my son. Their deaths are a terrible loss and our gov't has done little to save them. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is gone and Iraq is in shambles with terrorists pouring in funded by Libya, Syria and probably Saudi Arabia. So why should I support a war that kills our young- and those not so young- for no purpose I can discern- except the ego of some politicians.
And your alternative is what, Andrea?
"We live in the United States of America where disagreeing with the gov't is still our right. How dare you suggest that people who oppose this war are traitors? George Bush and his administration are no more "America" than anyone else. I love this country- it was a haven for my grandparents and my father and uncles fought in WWII in Europe and the Pacific. This war is wrong and to me saying so publicly is part of my love for America -for us to do what is right."
I didn't call him traitor for opposing the war. I was referring to comparing American soldiers to those who murder chidren.
"I didn't call him traitor for opposing the war. I was referring to comparing American soldiers to those who murder chidren."
Oh really? Here's what you said:
"'OK, I have seen the polls [about stopping a dictator], where there is still a small number of Americans who believe this. I always wondered who it was. Now I guess I know.
If you think the war in Iraq is justified, you'll justify anything. You don't have anything against murder of innocent people, your comments about abortion are hypocritical.'
Funny how the polls always say things like that until just before an election.
Read the lead editorial in the right-wing militarist newspaper, the Washington Post, today. They agree the war was necessary. Their only quibble is that Bush should explain why better to the public.
Who knows how many lives were saved when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait, when we kept him from flying over the Kurds, when we chased him and his despicable sons into a hole?
Look, you lousy traitor, do me a favor: Go up to the Kensington library and check out a copy of Toby Keith's Greatest Hits Vol 2 and listen to track 5: Courtesy of the Red White and Blue. We'll just call it reparative therapy."
I don't see one word in your remarks about abortion. You used the term traitor in reference to opponents of the war.
I'll tell you what a traitor is. It's someone who is willing, while we are at war, to out an active duty undercover CIA operative who happens to be married to a vocal war critic, in order to cover up their own lies that led us to the war in the first place. That's treason. And it is disgusting to patriots like me that some of our fellow citizens support and praise an administration that was involved in such behavior.
Oh yeah, and let me point out you have confounded the first gulf war with the second. The first gulf war was carefully and realistically planned by Bush Sr. and his military advisors, and it was successful. On the contrary, W's version was delusionally planned by a bunch of business cronies, is unjustified, and has dissolved into a quagmire. And don't forget, part of W's plan was that Iraq's oil revenues were supposed to pay for this war. That's another part of the plan that didn't quite work out the way W planned, huh?
Many people opposed to W's ego-tripping blunder supported the first gulf war, and that includes me.
Aunt Bea
My alternative to the war- leaving Iraq. America needs her sons and daughters here -to rebuild our country , to be educated and help our children- not losing their lives for a country that will no matter when we leave become a dictatorship/theocracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home