Cindy Crawford vs. Cindy in Crawford

 
Cindy Crawford vs. Cindy in Crawford

Comments

[Marc Valdez]

Efforts to insult Cindy Sheehan for speaking out against the Iraqi war are really vile. Don't you have any sense of shame?

[Tom McMahon]

I'll put that down as 1 vote for Cindy Sheehan. She's now leading, 1-0.

[Jim Miller]

address the content of her message rather than appearances...

[Tom McMahon]

But I don't really need longer lashes . . .

[hieronymous braintree]

The fact that Casey Sheehan son died in Iraq more than justifies making fun of his mother for being unattractive.

BTW, Tommy Boy. How old are you and, assuming you're military age, why haven't you enlisted? Don't you want a chance to join in on the comedy like Casey did? Maybe we can get our jocular rocks off talking about what a sorry-looking bag of shit your mom is some day.

[Tom McMahon]

You're the one calling her unattractive. Why do you think that? She looks fine to me.

[hieronymous braintree]

Oh, excuse me. I thought the whole point of putting the two photographs together like that was in order to compare the physical attractiveness of the two women as some sort of gratuitous insult at the expense of Cindy Sheehan. If I'm really wrong about that then you won't mind telling everyone what the point of your post actually was so we can all understand where you're really coming from. I certainly don't consider myself to old to learn from a comic master such as yourself.

Of course, if you can't come up with a plausible explanation, then I and whoever isn't a wingnut that sees this is going to have to assume you're just some weasel who thinks he's cute — a theory,which I don't mind telling you, I presently consider to be an extreemly promising one.

And, again, how old are you and, if you are military age, why haven't you enlisted?

[Tom McMahon]

It's simply a play on words, that's all. With pictures. I did the same sort of thing with Cheesehead Confusion: Nietzsche or Nitschke?

I enlisted during the Vietnam War. Thinking of joining up? The jobs aren't always a thrill-a-minute, but you get to travel a lot.

[hieronymous braintree]

I must admit you beat me on this one. I still think it's a load of crap and that you were trying to insult her but I cannot break your story.

In view of the fact that you're a right-winger and, in view of all the vitrol that's been sent in Sheehan's direction I think it should be obvious that most people would think that your intent was to insult her. But, if that's your defense, I can't say it isn't a good one. In view of the fact that Cindy Sheehan's son died in Iraq and in view of the fact that, regardless of what you think of her opinions, she is obviously in a lot of pain do you honestly think that sort of humor is appropriate? Even if my suspicions are completely wrong you do understand that the joke, such as it is, makes you look like a callous lout, right?

Actually I wanted to join up after 9/11 to go to Afghanistan but was too old. I even made some phone calls to see if there was some other way I could serve because I wanted to help get Osama bin Laden, the White House's forgotten man. Thank God for age. Otherwise, I might be stuck in Iraq fighting and dying in an incompetently managed war for reasons that turned out to be totally full of shit while the bastard who killed a bunch of people in my town gets off scott free. You aren't in any way embarrassed by the fact that those justifications did turn out to be a bunch of shit, are you?

BTW, I see you say that you enlisted "during the Vietnam war." Did you actually go to Vietnam? Or were you more or less comfy? The reason I ask is that with very few exceptions, such as John McCain, most of the people who are enthusiastic about this war either never served or were in comfy positions far from harm's way whle the fighting was going on. Most are like old "Mission Accomplished" and Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney who chose to let others die in their place rather than risk their own necks.

And if you did go to Vietnam, in view of the fact that 56,000 American lives were squandered and God knows how many others ruined to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who we killed I'm left wondering how you can so enthusiastically supporter a war in which 1,800 of our soldiers have died when all the original justifications turned out to be a fat load of shit.

[hieronymous braintree]

One other point. Take a look again at the picture of Cindy Sheehan you posted in order to have your little joke. What do you notice? You should notice that hers is the face of a woman who is obviously in a tremendous amount of pain. That, of course, can only add to the vast humor of your original intent. My congratulations on the power of your wit.

[Tom McMahon]

Briefly:

1. I was on submarines during the Cold War. Not a Hero by any stretch of the imagination.

2. Iraq: Just as we went after Germany after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we are justified going after Iraq after 9/11.

3. Vietnam: Micromanaged by Lyndon Johnson. No clear objective. America should never do that again.

4. Vietnam, II: Because there was no clear objective, I don't criticize anyone who didn't go.

5. Vietnam, III: One thing we never talk about is the 2 million Cambodians who died because we pulled out of Indochina. But that's another topic altogether.

6. It's obvious that Cindy Sheehan isn't thinking right. Shame on the Left for putting her on display in the first place.

7. In spite of all the abuse directed my way, the fact that you made attempts to volunteer tells me you're a stand-up sort of guy, willing to walk the talk.

8. Wars are always mismanaged in some sense. Even WWII.

I hope Cindy Sheehan finds Peace. But she's not going to find it in the public spotlight.

[Maven]

As a long-time reader of Tom, I'll vouch for his enjoyment of word-play (check out his MANY '4-block world' posts for more proof) I took this post as it was intended, but I can see how others could jump to the wrong conclusion.

[hieronymous braintree]

Well, this is turning out better than imagined. I now fully accept your explanation. Like Maven says, I think my impression was understandable but I'm sorry if I got you wrong. And I am glad that you, unlike so many other Republicans, actually served when asked. I would now like to politely refute one or two points.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no connection. Even the president has admitted that. It was Osama bin Laden who did the trick. Yeah, Saddam supported terrorism in Israel but so have our so-called Saudi allies. I doubt I'm going to convince you but a lot of reputable people, including Republican CIA agents, think the war in Iraq has made our situation more perilous. I'm convinced that's true as I have yet to hear what I consider to be a compelling argument as to how it's supposed to make us safer. The various threats cited proved to be unreal and we've managed to piss off pretty much the entire Arab world while leaving OBL alive as a symbol of anti-American opposition. If you ask me, that's a pretty poor combination. I'll believe this democracy flourishing in the desert jazz when I see it firmly established. Up till then color me extremely skeptical. Democracy as a general rule is fought for from within, not imposed from without.

Let's not argue about Cambodia. It's old news and won't get us anywhere.

This administration was warned that more men were needed for the occupation and also warned that this thing would turn out to be a quagmire. From where I sit both predictions turned out to 100% correct. I have never bought any of the premature crowing over victory. I agree with you that all wars are mismanaged. Wars are so fucking immense it's pretty much impossible not to mismanage them. Still there are degrees and I think that by any reasonable standard this one has been mismanaged in a way that crosses the line. You and I could probably argue over that one without getting anywhere.

In any case, we were in a position to force our way into inspecting wherever the hell we wanted go by threatening and maybe using limited force. It simply wasn't necessary to start a full-scale war followed by occupation. Bush insisted that going to war was a "last resort" but he stopped inspections in order to start this one. I'm no pacifist and supported sending our troops to Kuwait, but starting a real war at a time when Hussein was caving in to our demands was, I think, a truly collasal, utterly predictable blunder. If a genuine impasse had been reached then our going in would have been sufficiently justified. (Skeptical as I was about WMD claims, I still thought it was necessary to make sure.)

Cindy Sheehan isn't going to find peace by going public. From where I sit, that's not the point. I think what's she's looking for is to hold those who got her son killed publcally responsible which is her way of standing by him. Actually finding peace is the final part of the process.

[Ken der Ami]

I can agree with both sides here except HB's passing off of the Cambodian 2 MM. If what happened in Cambodia is "old news" that "won't get us anywhere" why isn't the Vietnam war itself?

I lived in Asia for a while and most people there are thankful we stood (for a while) against a well-planned, highly-subsidized strategy of expansion by the Communists (both Russian and Chinese). We gave places like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. a chance to modernize and stabilize after years of colonial rule.

Someone famous (can't remember who) once said the most accurate history isn't written until 50 years after the event, so maybe we should wait another 10 years or so.

[duaneage]

HB just prefers the LaLa land of UN managed "peace" where we have multi party talks and sanctions. How about just sitting down with ol OBL and putting his demands on the table. Oh wait, we already complied with one by removing troops from Saudi but thats OK he has newer demands like becoming an Islamic nation.

I am not praying to any rock 5 times a day so HB can feel we " at least didn't fight a war"

I doubt HB really inquired about enlisting. But it sure sounds like artificial troop support which is very common today. If you support the troops then you support killing these terrorists in the middle east, not our country.

HB obviously thinks the Clinton administration policies

1. Had nothing to do with where we are today and 911

2. Were the best course of action to take at the time.

[BigJagov]

I really tire of these people that go on and on that 'Saddam was not involved in 9/11'. They just don't get it...will they ever??? Here's the deal...no one EVER said he was. But...in a post 9/11 world WE COULD NOT TAKE THE CHANCE THAT SADDAM'S WMD CAPABILITIES (present OR future) WOULD BE ALLOWED TO COME TO FRUITION. Remember "before the threat becomes iminent"????

Does anyone really doubt that Saddam's ultimate goal was to become King Shit of the Arab world by using WMDs??? He can't do that now, can he, regardless of his true intentions??