#1, The Nation is extremely partisan. #2.

Tillman didn't talk about why he went into the service to anyone. We will have to assume that what his mother is saying is true. Has the wife spoken out? I would think if he told his deepest heart's secrets, it would be to her. She was his high school sweetheart. Here's a snippet from a Newsweek article.

He joined the service just after a honeymoon to Bora Bora with his high-school sweetheart, Marie. He and a younger brother, Kevin, slipped off to enlist in Denver, where they could avoid publicity. Kevin, who gave up a budding minor-league baseball career, remains in the Army. Pat Tillman wanted no attention, no glory, for joining the rank and file. He didn't want to be singled out from his brothers and sisters in the military, says former Cardinals coach Dave McGinnis. Tillman apparently had made a pact with his family to stay silent about his service, a promise they have kept. They have gathered to grieve inside the comfortable family home in a leafy enclave of San Jose.

His was no simple case of patriotism; Tillman was never known as a flag-waver. His agent, Frank Bauer, told reporters he had suspected that Tillman might quit to teach or to practice law like his father, Patrick Sr., but not to join the military. Snyder, his college coach, said Tillman never used the word patriotism when he explained his plans to enlist. He just seemed to think something had to be done. When players asked why he enlisted, he didn't want to talk about it. McGinnis says there were reasons Pat said he had that he didn't want to divulge, and the coach respected his view and his right to make his own path. Tillman had always been different. When he joined the pros, he rode a bicycle to practice because he didn't own a car. He refused to buy a cell phone. A sports publicist at Arizona State once described him as a surfer dude.

It seems his mother decided the pact no longer had any merit. Personally, I see another Cindy Sheehan, disobeying her son's wishes.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

St. Paul, MN � June 17, 2003 � When national Democratic leaders visit St. Paul next week, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace and other Minnesota organizations will be on the scene to question presidential candidates, raising the electoral bar for peace, justice, and environmental issues.

The Association of State Democratic Chairs and the Democratic National Committee will convene this weekend at the Radisson Riverfront Hotel at 11 East Kellogg Boulevard in St. Paul. Gearing up for the 2004 presidential elections, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace will be outside the hotel on Friday, June 20, from 2:30 to 5:30 p.m. to invite the candidates to join concerned Minnesota Democrats in dialogue about critical issues.

"People are leaving the Democratic party in droves, because in recent elections the candidates have become so centrist that they are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans," comments Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace co-founder, Anne Benson. "We want to see the Democratic party return to its progressive roots�to stand up for working people and poor people, and to fight against the regressive domestic and foreign policies of the Bush administration."

The neighbors from the Merriam Park area of St. Paul hold that in recent elections, Democratic candidates have lost their chance to take office because they've neglected the concerns of their own voters.

"It has always been said, 'There are more Democrats than Republicans; we just need to get out the vote,'" states member, Steve Schwarz. "We, however, need a reason to get out the vote. Many Democrats have felt alienated and misrepresented by the party and have looked instead to other alternatives. We believe in the principles that made the Democratic party what it was and still can be today. Remember, we in Minnesota have supported a long line of Democratic politicians who voted on principle and not on predictions of popularity. We expect our candidates to make peace and justice issues a priority."

Adds Benson, "We're encouraging candidates to ask themselves the hard questions: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Was I misled by the administration when I voted for the War Powers Resolution? How do we get out of this quagmire in Iraq? Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on too many civil liberties?"

Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace has invited all Democratic candidates to meet with them after their sessions conclude on Friday to answer a series of fourteen questions regarding issues of pre-emptive war, international relations, arms development, military spending, V.A. benefits, U.S. economy, social programs, employment, globalization, education, health care, civil liberties, terrorism, and environmental policy. They invite all Minnesotans with these concerns to join them in St. Paul on Friday in addressing the candidates.

"We're not endorsing a particular candidate," group member, Jeanne Schnitzen, notes. "We're giving them all a chance to look us in the eye and answer to the issues we vote for. If they're really in this race to turn the tides, we'll make sure they get that chance. I want to believe there is a Democratic candidate who is capable of sowing the seeds of change."

Only the conservatives on these boards fail to open their eyes and be objective when it comes to Bush and his actions. They're obviously partisan conservatives.

However, the people who continue to defend Bennett after Bush himself condemned Bennett's statement... well, there's a name for them, as well.

I think we're starting to see a divide in the conservative party. Those who just blindly follow Bush, unwilling or unable to see what's really happening, and the more sinister, dangerous, racist group who wouldn't mind seeing all black babies aborted. Those who insist on defending Bennett are emphasizing that distinction, which is a good thing. Let these people reveal themselves for what they really are.

But you would have to read something other than far-right-wing propaganda, which you probably don't. Try getting a more global perspective and you will be less naive and less gullible. Unfortunately, if you had a more non-partisan world view you would also probably stop attributing all the problems of the world to the leftists. And then who would you have left to insult?

Part of the fault lies with lack of follow-through in Afghanistan but the major problem lies with Pakistan which has been the major breeding ground of the Taliban and terrorists for years. The U.S. pretty did a cut-and-run in tracking down bin Laden.

What is the answer to all this? I don't know. However, I do know that Pakistan's support of terrorism and the Taliban has been in place for a long, long time and is not the result of the Iraq peace movement in the United States, despite what your extremely partisan sources may insist.

WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.

I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.

Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.

In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.

The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.

Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.

Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.

Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.

Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.

Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.

Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.

Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.

Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.

But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.

Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/us/politics/24web-nagourney.html?bl&ex=1230354000&en=16a3dd67da5bac74&ei=5087%0A

by a first-generation African-American woman (hard to get by with calling her a racist) in The National Thinker:

Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa

Well worth reading the entire thing: http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2278969/posts?page=1

As an outsider, I could give you another perspective and one not nearly so dire as yours. However, I also realise that my view is slanted as I simply adore this country and Americans in general. In short, given the information at his disposal, George Bush�s decision to oust Saddam looks altogether reasonable--though, again, not necessarily right. To argue otherwise demonstrates both ignorance and bad faith. So what are we to make of the downward spiral of sectarian mayhem that is currently drawing Iraq into the abyss? The violence seems senseless to us . . . but perhaps that�s the point. Perhaps our enemies recognize that the great exploitable weakness of the American military is that, in the wake of Vietnam, the American public�s grasp of geo-politics runs only as deep as the lyrics to Bob Dylan�s �Blowing in the Wind.� This is a weakness every bit as real, and every bit as deadly, as a missile with a faulty guidance system or a tank that stalls in its tracks--and it will remain a real weakness until the American public is knocked upside the head a sufficient number of times to outgrow it. What the degeneration of the mission in Iraq indicates most profoundly is that one 9/11 was not enough to crack through the platitudes of the late 1960s--which are deeply embedded in the universities, television networks and editorial pages of major newspapers. There remains, in such circles, the delusion that the jihadists are ultimately live and let live types, that totalitarian Islam will eventually just peter out, that the principles of the European Enlightenment will simply dawn on a billion Muslims without us cramming them down their throats.This may in the end prove the deadliest error in geo-political judgment Americans have ever made. Members of the genocidally well-meaning baby-boom generation will likely go to their graves believing they �gave peace a chance,� having spared themselves the anguish of killing hundreds of thousand Muslims . . . and likely bequeathed to their children and grandchildren the anguish of killing scores of millions.

It's just a device used by the neocons to keep the attention of the stifled. They know that the repressed loonies in the county slobber over anything pertaining to sex. Just look at O'Reilly. Nearly every night he has some story about prostitutes, strip clubs, girls gone wild -- he is complaining how horrible it is, yet they always have tapes behind him of half-naked coeds grinding away. If it is so horrible, must we see the tapes over and over?

Obama was VOTED in, not 'given' the job as President...You know, I cannot believe some of the things tht come from the brains and out of the miouths oif some indivuduals. This is indeed a historic moment; that I am in agreement with, and I also agree that 170M for the Inaguration was excessive but I will tell you what I find even more excessive - the lying, stealing criminal former administration who ripped of the American people (regardless of political affilation) and basically thummed their noses at us because they felt and still feel they are above the law. The former president and his administration didn't give a durn about the economy and reputation of this country do you truly believe that they cared whether you, your husbands, sons and other relatives lost their jobs and homes? Do you really think they were concerned about whether YOU have enough to retire on after dutifully putting away funds in your 401k? I don't think so. They gutted us and left us twisting in the wind; and while we worry about how we are going to pay the light bill and have enough to buy grioceries let alone our mortgage - they dine well and live like kings, their families and frineds in their inner circles do not have to concern themselves with such mundane issues...why would they? Their gods are Franklin, Harrison, Grant, et al.WE PAID FOR IT and will be for years to come.

Now that would be an improvement. This country was not founded on christianity or any other relgion. I agree that Obama was downplaying religion, but I also believe that that is exactly what he needed to do. Bush turned this whole mess into a big "us against them" mentality...."us" meaning christians. I believe Obama had to negate this idea by downplaying religion, thus deflating the whole notion that we are in a religious war (which is exactly what Bush wanted and subsequently turned it into.)

What I find really interesting is the idea that you insinuate that we MUST be identified as a nation by a specific religion. Since we are talking about this in the context of politics, exactly why is it you feel we MUST be seen by the world as a "god-fearing" nation? What would be the benefits of that?

This isn�t new (it�s from May), but it�s the first I saw it. I found it interesting but not surprising. Our Veterans deserve much better.

Appearing yesterday at the Arlington National Cemetery to honor generations of sacrifices by American servicemen and women, President Bush said, "At our national cemetery, we take comfort from knowing that the men and women who are serving freedom's cause understand their purpose and its price." Yet the reality has been that the administration that most recently has sent those men and women to fight for freedom's cause has failed for live up to government's age-old promise to "care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan."

BUSH'S 2006 VA BUDGET HITS VETERANS HARD: President Bush's 2006 budget proposal included legislation that would raise veterans' premiums more than 100 percent on prescription drugs and add an annual $250 enrollment fee for veterans who want care for conditions not directly caused by military service and who generally earn more than $25,000 a year. The administration has recommended these same proposals in each of the past few years, only to have them beaten back by Congress each time. The user fee would increase costs for nearly 2 million veterans nationwide.

WAR VETERANS EXCLUDED FROM COST OF WAR ON TERROR: Conservatives in Congress rebuffed an effort to include $2 billion in emergency money for veterans' health care in the recently passed $82 billion Iraq war supplemental. The president's request increased the VA budget a mere 2.7 percent (including the increased co-pays and enrollment fees), hardly sufficient to deal with an expected influx of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans in the coming years. Nearly 28,000 soldiers who served in Iraq and were discharged have already sought care at a VA facility. Of the nearly 245,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan already discharged from service, 12,422 have been in VA counseling centers for readjustment problems and symptoms associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson has said the budget circumstances are not "dire," yet Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Larry Craig (R-ID) was forced to increase the 2006 budget request by $1 billion. Dave Autry, a spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans, said, "Vets are owed a debt and the government has said they are eligible for health care. The government needs to pay for it. It's a continuing cost of our national defense."

BUSH WANTS TO SHUT DOWN VETERANS HOSPITAL IN HIS OWN BACKYARD: Veterans in Bush's backyard, near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, are protesting his administration's decision to close a VA hospital in their town. "It would be, in my opinion, a tragic mistake to shut down our hospital, especially during a time of war when tomorrow's veterans are in harm's way today," said U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Waco). In May 2004, then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi announced he would be closing three veterans hospitals nationwide and partially closing eight others. For his work, Principi was rewarded with an appointment to the chairmanship of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission.

VETERANS GROUPS SLAM BUSH BUDGET: More than 300,000 veterans' claims are pending before the VA, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the number of claims pending for more than six months rose from 47,000 in 2003 to 75,000 at the end of March 2005. The deteriorating condition of VA health care has elicited plenty of criticism. The American Legion called Bush's budget "the wrong message at the wrong time to the wrong constituency." The Vietnam Veterans of America said the budget did a "disservice to those of us who donned the uniform to defend the rights, principles, and freedoms that we hold dear." And the Veterans of Foreign Wars decried Bush's decision as "especially shameful during a time of war."