Boy, I hate it when I read things like that.

She's not giving Bin Laden credit for his other attacks, which, by my calculations, makes George Bush only 9 times "the terrorist Osama ever was".

What kind of example is she setting for us if she can't bother to get her math straight?

actually, sheehan's math is way off. it turns out that bush is 1% the terrorist of bin laden. i have recently returned from the portal into the alternate future that kirk, spock and mccoy went through on star trek when they had to let joan collins get killed by a truck because otherwise her peace movement would delay american entry into ww2 and thus gave hitler time to develop an atomic bomb which allowed the nazi's to win. had we not toppled saddam, in 8 years we would have been hit by a massive wmd attack that killed millions. fortunately, that time line has been changed.

There's also the inconvenient fact that most of those 30,000 killed in Iraq have been killed by the insurgents and you can probably add those to OBL's total too. The most common numbers I have seen say 70% of the casualties are insurgent victims. So that's 21,000 in Iraq for OBL, 9,000 for Bush, and 300,000 for Saddam.

Or why not make those 21,000 Cindy's total? Does anyone doubt that the volume of criticism against the Iraq war in the American media (whether justified or unjustified) has emboldened the insurgency?

Both sides can play silly numbers and blame games.

The stupid hen and her mindless clucking no wonder her son left who wants to listen to all that stupid clucking?

I think I speak for all clucking hens when I say that while all of our clucking may be mindless, we still exhibit more intelligence than Cindy Sheehan ever has.

Such delicious irony, hearing spurwing talk about stupid clucking.

awww, lay off Spurwing.

Im spurwing plover and i kick the crap out all those roosters

Cindy Sheehan is not only an intelligent American citizen but the grieving mother of a son killed in Iraq. As such she is 100 times the patriot of your average insulated neo-tard.

I support the war on terror 110% and yet I see Sheehan's vocal opposition to the war in no way interfering with the war on terror.

In fact, I feel the war on terror has been going on a very long time - at least since 1993 when the first WTC attack occurred.

Certainly by 1995 we KNEW we were at war when the Phillippine police busted the so-called "Bojinka" plot wide open and exposed that KSM and Yousef had plotted to hijack 12 planes simultaneously and use them in a deadly attack, exploding some in mid-air while using others as missiles to target specific US targets. Philip Zelikow would later characterize the foiling of the most devious, murderous plot in all history an "unraveling". Mmmm, it just "unraveled" that's all. Well that's how Dietrich Snell the lead prosecutor treated it like. They prosecuted Murad and Yousef, that was about it. The others including KSM, were never caught.

We were at war. And yet by 1998 what did Philip Zelikow have to say about the war? There was no war. It was peacetime, according to Zelikow and draconian measures to stop the terrorist could not be considered.

Why not?

Well, Zelikow had something else in mind. What he envisioned was a turning point, a catastrophic event that would slaughter thousands and have Americans complaining BELATEDLY that their leaders weren't doing enough.

In order to pull of such an event, most Americans needed to think we were at peace, not war. We needed to feel that if we just paid another million off to Abu-Aziz after he cried "Discrimination" at the hands of an United Airlines stewardess that all would be well in the relations between the Arabs and the Infidels.

Welcome to the world of the Zeliklown, where nothing is as it seems. Where "Bring it on" is the key phrase and where fear of taking 'draconian measures' is used to justify intelligence failure.