View Full Version : Self-Described wanna-be Assassin attacks Laura Bush
The Interview (http://www.counterpunch.org/weill05222004.html)
I wanted to rip the president's head off. Curse him, yell at him, call him a self righteous bastard and a lot of other words. I think if I had him in front of me I would shoot him in the groined area. Let him suffer. And just continue shooting him there. Put him through misery, like he's doing to everyone else. He doesn't deserve any better.
She shows ultimate disrespect for her son who joined in 2002 (when the war was already on) for his choice to support America. Shameful.
So a kid who allowed a liar to manipulate him is a patriot?
I seem to understand neither patriotism nor politics.
~D
Maybe her remarks are shameful (they are borderline illegal) but her son is dead and I can understand her anger.
Mr. President:
Respectfully, I would be inclined to let a mother grieve the loss of her son and I would cut her some slack in her anger towards the man whose decisions led to his death.
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. President:
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't see how you can refer to this poster as "Mr. President"
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. President:
Respectfully, I would be inclined to let a mother grieve the loss of her son and I would cut her some slack in her anger towards the man whose decisions led to his death.
[/ QUOTE ]
Her grief is not the problem. This is an anti-war activist who is recklessly using her son's memory to push her agenda. The fact that he volunteered after September 11th, and after the War on Terrorism had started is clear evidence that he was at least willing to participate in this war. How dare she say otherwise when he can not speak for himself. Being a close relative does not give you the right to speak falsely of someone. That is what is shameful.
tolbiny
09-20-2004, 01:24 PM
Being a close relative does not give you the right to speak falsely of someone. That is what is shameful
Speak fasely of someone? so his own mother is clearly speaking falsely of him, while you, being what, his siamese twin? Know better?
The fact that he volunteered after September 11th, and after the War on Terrorism had started is clear evidence that he was at least willing to participate in this war
There are a vast number of reasons to join the military, patriatism is not the only one. In the article the mother clearly spells out what she believes to be his reasons, and notes a hesitency on her sons part to join untill he was assured he wouldn't see combat.
How dare she say otherwise when he can not speak for himself.
So when someone is killed no one can say anything about them in any way, since they can no longer speak for themselves?
Her son is dead. Have some empathy, even if you disagree with her.
nothumb
09-20-2004, 03:14 PM
Hey Dubs,
If this woman was a pro-war activist, would she be out of line for saying her son fervently supported your war, or would that be less 'shameful' of an assumption? Assuming everyone in the military is behind you, by default, until proven otherwise, is truly foolish.
I think you are really reaching for people to slander at this point. Don't you have an agenda of some sort, or does it just involve trying to prove how evil anyone is who disagrees with you?
I am officially sick to death of discussing electoral politics in this forum.
NT
swimfan
09-20-2004, 03:36 PM
From the article, it doesn't sound like the son was enlisting for patriotic reasons. Additionally, the mother didn't sign up for the War on GWB until her son's death.
wacki
09-20-2004, 04:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So a kid who allowed a liar to manipulate him is a patriot?
I seem to understand neither patriotism nor politics.
~D
[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to be a patriot. Just emulate Michael Moore.
Michael Moore is the biggest Patriot of them all. Celebrities in hollywood say so. The New York Times say so. http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0519.asp
Many other reporters say so http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/3514.html.
Numerous democratic congressmen (not all thank god, only a select few, but still way too many), and people involved at the DNC, France's "highly prestigious" Cannes Film Festival, plus many other people that had mothers that smoked way to much crack while they were still in the womb. I love the media and how little they think of average american.
wacki
09-20-2004, 04:30 PM
I'll never understand why people who sign up for the military complain that they shouldn't have to go oversees. If you don't want to risk going to war, don't sign up. It's just that easy.
Several of you seem to think the mother should get a pass. Let me remind you:
Her son signed up voluntarily, she may or may not like it, but it was his choice not hers.
She is the one who is advocating bodily injury on someone (re-read the original post of this thread).
Should her grief eclipse the grief of all the other mothers of sons who understand the sacrifices necessary for freedom? In any group of people you can find liberals and conservatives, pro-war and anti-war, why should we have a fetish of support for this anti-war activist?
You do not own the rights to your children or to the memory of your children.
I find it hard to believe that her son could be in a bomb/munitions unit completely against his will - I think she is playing fast and loose with the facts.
Read the full interview (link in top post). She does not deserve your sympathy based on her own kookiness.
andyfox
09-20-2004, 04:56 PM
Just because you play fast and loose with the facts doesn't mean everybody else does.
Of course she deserves our sympathy. Her son was killed. You say it was a necessary sacrifice for freedom; she thinks otherwise. I have heard you say many times how you think about the families of our fallen heroes and how they deserve our utmost respect and sympathy.
Her comments about wanting to physically harm you are out of line. But they're nowhere near as out of line as you sending our young men and women to die in Iraq, without a plan to win the peace, and saying it's a "necessary sacrifice" for freedom.
Shame on you. I'm voting for the other guy.
tolbiny
09-20-2004, 05:16 PM
If (and i am not saying it 100% for sure is) what the mother says is true, and the son was apprehensive about going overseas, and that was holding him back from signing up, and the recruiter said that the program he was entering would not send him overseas, and then he got sent overseas (how's that for a runon?)- he would be justified in being pissed. As would his relatives/loved ones.
Son,
Let's not go too far now. All parents love their kids, just like Barr and I love you.
Let the woman have her say without slammin' her down.
Don't Barr and I always support you in public, even when you are pulling another boner?
Calm down, being a one-termer ain't so bad, I should know. Barr and I will always love you son.
tolbiny
09-20-2004, 05:27 PM
You do not own the rights to your children or to the memory of your children.
You seem to think that you own the rights to the memory of her son. Where do you get off making assumptions about what her kid did, why he did it, and why she is saying what she is saying? Did You Actually Know HIm? Or is the fact that he served in the military enough that he fits every sterotype of every military man and woman out there?
I find it hard to believe that her son could be in a bomb/munitions unit completely against his will - I think she is playing fast and loose with the facts.
So of course you, with absolutly no facts at hand, are right, and she is wrong.
Should her grief eclipse the grief of all the other mothers of sons who understand the sacrifices necessary for freedom?
Apparently there are people who don't feel that these sacrifices are necessary for freedom. But then again criticizing anyone in power would be wrong.
Read the full interview (link in top post). She does not deserve your sympathy based on her own kookiness
So aperson distraught with grief no longer deserves our sympathy because they had harsh words to say about someone you agree with?
I wrote empathy, not sympathy.
wacki
09-20-2004, 05:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If (and i am not saying it 100% for sure is) what the mother says is true, and the son was apprehensive about going overseas, and that was holding him back from signing up, and the recruiter said that the program he was entering would not send him overseas, and then he got sent overseas (how's that for a runon?)- he would be justified in being pissed. As would his relatives/loved ones.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a good point. I wonder if the concept of expressed warranty (law term) applies to military recruiters.
If her son recieved an expressed warranty, then she should file a class action lawsuit. I'm not saying she should get money or anything, but the military recruiters should not even think about telling the kids they are recruiting something that may not end up true. The kids are literally signing her life away, they should know all of the small print. In fact, there should be a pamphlet or website entitled "top 100 complaints from volunteers" or something similar that would cover all of this kind of BS. They should be required to read it before signing. Just a thought, but it would end all of this BS.
Then again, you are signing up the military, if you don't think you are going to war if one breaks out, then you are a moron, and a leach.
nothumb
09-20-2004, 06:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'll never understand why people who sign up for the military complain that they shouldn't have to go oversees.
[/ QUOTE ]
Me either, that's why I don't sign up for the military. That and I'm a lousy shot. What does this have to do with my post? All I said was that GWB is really reaching for people to attack, and that he wouldn't have had a problem with this woman making statements about her sons wishes if she had taken the opposite side.
NT
Breaking New Today:
Secret Service reviewing comments made by Hopewell woman (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--soldiersmother-t0922sep22,0,7297750.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire)
TRENTON, N.J. -- Threatening comments made about President Bush by a Hopewell Township woman whose son was killed in Iraq are under review by the Secret Service.
Federal officials said they are examining comments made in online postings of interviews with Sue Niederer, who was arrested last week during a Republican campaign rally in Mercer County when she interrupted a speech by first lady Laura Bush.
In portions an interview posted online in May on the Web site Counterpunch.org, Niederer said she wanted to "rip the president's head off" and "shoot him in the groined area."
The comments caught the attention of a Secret Service analyst and are under review, according to Special Agent Tony Colgary. It is a federal crime to threaten to kill the president.
Niederer told The Trenton Times on Tuesday that she was upset about her son's death when she gave the interviews. She insisted that she did not want to kill or shoot the president.
"Absolutely not," she said.
Telephone messages left by The Associated Press for Niederer and the Secret Service were not immediately returned Wednesday morning.
Niederer's son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, was killed in February while trying to disarm a bomb in Iraq. The 24-year-old had just returned to Iraq after spending two weeks with his family.
Niederer had refused to leave the rally with Laura Bush at a Hamilton firehouse last Thursday and was eventually escorted from the site.
She wore a T-shirt that bore the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of her son. Police dropped charges of trespassing against her the next day.
Chris Alger
09-22-2004, 04:16 PM
Hers is precisely the attitude we should adopt if there's going to be any America worth having 100 years hence. 80% of Iraqis, according to Gallup, support violence against the very forces purporting to give them what they want. Sudden regime change in several countries (Pakistan, India, Israel, N. Korea, Iran) could deliver nuclear weapons directly to many of the millions now desperate -- thanks be to Bush -- to teach America a lesson. In any event, the inevitable march of technology will spread WMD everywhere, barring efforts to outlaw them entirely, an effort beyond the contemplation of U.S. leaders.
So how much tolerance should we have for officials who lied and lied and lied to expand hegemony by mass violence, terrorized the planet with a perpetual threat of "preemptive" war, creating a possibly terminal resentment toward America worldwide?
Less than zero. Let the hypocrites and cowards wave their flags and cheer gangsters all they want. Americans like Sue Niederer vindicate our survival.
Wake up CALL
09-22-2004, 04:41 PM
Alger am I to understand that you are advocating viloence by individual Americans against our government in order to stop our war on terror? You are one sick puppy.
vulturesrow
09-22-2004, 04:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hers is precisely the attitude we should adopt if there's going to be any America worth having 100 years hence.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah just what America needs, a nation full of people who are so bitter they make public threats against a sitting President.
[ QUOTE ]
Sudden regime change in several countries (Pakistan, India, Israel, N. Korea, Iran) could deliver nuclear weapons directly to many of the millions now desperate -- thanks be to Bush -- to teach America a lesson.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah because none of these people hated America before Bush. Guess what Chris, you always see the cockroaches scuttling when you turn on the lights. Just because America is turning on the lights doesnt mean we created the cockroaches.
[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the inevitable march of technology will spread WMD everywhere, barring efforts to outlaw them entirely, an effort beyond the contemplation of U.S. leaders
[/ QUOTE ]
Well its inevitable, lets just give up on efforts to try and stop the spread of WMD.
[ QUOTE ]
So how much tolerance should we have for officials who lied and lied and lied to expand hegemony by mass violence, terrorized the planet with a perpetual threat of "preemptive" war, creating a possibly terminal resentment toward America worldwide?
[/ QUOTE ]
You read way too much Chomsky. Equating pre-emptive war to terrorism is just ridiculous. That being said, I hope some countries and terrorist groups are terrified of us. I very much doubt that most countries feel terrorized by American pre-emptive war policy.
[ QUOTE ]
Americans like Sue Niederer vindicate our survival.
[/ QUOTE ]
Americans like Sue Niderer survive because they live in a powerful country that isnt afraid to stand up for what is right. Americans like Sue Niderer can make threats against the President and not disappear into some gulag for 50 years because America is great. Self hate is not what America needs and American survival doesnt have to be vindicated by anyone, it was earned by people like her son.
Chris Alger
09-22-2004, 06:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Alger am I to understand ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Something you needn't fear.
Wake up CALL
09-22-2004, 06:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Something you needn't fear.
[/ QUOTE ]
But people such as yourself are nearly as dangerous as the Arab terrorists. It is wise to fear your and your facist viewpoints.
creating a possibly terminal resentment toward America worldwide?
Hey, did you here about 9/11? Were those terrorists just ahead of the curve or did Bush somehow create those as well?
I'm curious, do you throw your lot with the 80%?
Alger am I to understand that you are advocating viloence by individual Americans against our government
Duh. You have been around long enough to know that.
elscorcho768
09-26-2004, 06:01 AM
Thank God we live in a country that allows people the right of free speech. Thank God we live in a country where hundreds of thousands of people can march against the leader of our country. Thank God for people like Sue Niederer, who remind us how important the freedom of speech is. But most of all, thank God we have a system in place that will never allow people like Sue Niederer and those who marched against Bush to become the leader of the free world.
Cyrus
09-26-2004, 07:05 AM
"Thank God we have a system in place that will never allow people like Sue Niederer and those who marched against Bush to become the leader of the free world."
You realize you just admitted (most charmingly!) that it is the system that is rigged against allowing undesirables, such as that woman, from getting elected, rather than "the free will of the people", don't you?
Thanks for the morning chuckle.
elscorcho768
09-26-2004, 08:24 AM
Oh, man, you almost got the point of my post. The free will of the people is the system, and it has never voted for nor will it ever vote for those that are politically alligned with the likes of this woman. Luckily, if will never vote for someone on the far-right either, though it has been close at times. The people will always decide against a candidate on the fringe of the political spectrum. Also, what part of the "hate-Israel left" is a lie. The far left, to which i am referring to, has never shown anything but contempt for israel ever since 67. if you do not believe this to be true, then you need to be "mugged by reality." finally, i agree that not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, but one has to admit that the hint of anti-Semitism is always present when people attack Israel and do not apply the same standard to other countries.
elscorcho768
09-26-2004, 08:26 AM
to clear up any confusion, the last post included references from another post from Cyrus on another thread
[ QUOTE ]
he free will of the people is the system, and it has never voted for nor will it ever vote for those that are politically alligned with the likes of this woman. Luckily, if will never vote for someone on the far-right either, though it has been close at times.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and no. The system is not rigged in the way Cyrus suggests (I can never tell if he truly is a whack job or if he is just stirring the pot. I suspect a little of both /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), but what you say is not entirely accurate.
Look at the candidates for president. They always suck because the core of the politcal parties never will never allow a moderate candidate. Look at what happened to McCain in the last election. Clearly, he was a superior candidate but the Republicans would never allow him to be be the candidate.
The primaries favor candidates that sing to the core. Then they try to move to the center for the election. What you end up with is crap. It would be great if the candidates could go after the center immediately.
Cyrus
09-26-2004, 07:54 PM
"My last post included references from another post from Cyrus on another thread."
Give me a call if you do weddings, I might have something for you.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif
elscorcho768
09-26-2004, 09:10 PM
I disagree. Candidates have always moved towards the center as the election approaches. The primaries are when they appeal to their core, but in an effort to get the most swing votes, they will always go to the middle.
hetron
09-26-2004, 10:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
creating a possibly terminal resentment toward America worldwide?
Hey, did you here about 9/11? Were those terrorists just ahead of the curve or did Bush somehow create those as well?
[/ QUOTE ]
Where there were once 100, there are now 1000. Any good will the US had immediately after 9/11 has all but been destroyed.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious, do you throw your lot with the 80%?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you ever get tired of making the same tired accusations over and over?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.