Sheehan Takes on the Democrats, Hillary Clinton

Cindy Sheehan, the rising star of the anti-war movement, remembers when people used to think of her as one of those crazy activists, speaking out for a cause, inconveniencing all who stumbled onto her path. She remembers, from her days camped outside President Bush’s ranch in Texas, how some drivers would shout out at her, “Get a job!”

-snip-

Her response was always the same. “I’d say to them, ‘I have a job,’ ” Sheehan explained Monday night at the last of her New York events, at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine. “I’d say, ‘It’s a full-time job, and it’s to hold George Bush accountable.’ ” With that, the 1200-strong crowd of peace activists, war veterans, ministers, and high-school students went wild.

-snip-

But Sheehan isn’t stopping her critique with Bush. On the contrary, she has begun to set her sights on Congress and the Democratic Party as well. When she spoke in Brooklyn on the night before, she took note of the fact that Senator Hillary Clinton voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq and– like most Senate Democrats–has done little to bring the troops home. Clinton, in fact, has filed legislation calling for more troops.


http://villagevoice.com/news/0538,lombardiweb,68015,2.html

The Democrats who voted for this legislation are also responsible especially if they haven't seen the light and realized that Bush lied to get us involved in Iraq.

the authorization to go into Iraq

and isn't made to hang by the words he said about the war at the time.

It's not fair to hold only Congresspeople accountable. The words of those who didn't have to commit to a vote should be taken into account as well.

Are you sure?

since you post it over and over and over and over

she did I swore Never to vote for her again.

:toast:

peace

my support over not just her vote but wanting to send in more troops. The base here in NY is turning against her. Talk of sit-ins at her office.

Does she still have folks on her side?

If she can't win NY, she ain't winning the nomination.

...any Dem would be crazy to challenge her.

The R's could theoretically win it if she is seen as bailing on New York to run for the Presidency two years later. Still, it is hard to see how New Yorkers would go Republican...it would have to be a better candidate than what the R's currently have.

right now. She has little competition. Jeanine Pirro is the Republican running against her and she has a lot of baggage. She will most likely pull this off but the support from the base isn't there so it won't be an overwhelming win.

what "base" are you referring to?

that was 7 months ago. She has come out with wanting to add some 90,000 troops since then. The 'base'=progressives

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0805/081605op.htm

she's shakin' in her boots...

Hey, maybe folks will follow behind her on this creating a new and then finally our elected Dem's will wake the fuck up and realize they won't be around for long if they keep this shit up!

bush is the commander in thief. When Hillary is Commander in Chief, then scream all you want. This is all straight from the Republican playbook and Bill O'Reilly - they're loving every minute of it and apparently we are too. Cindy is losing attention since she left Crawford and if she thinks attacking Hillary will bring more attention, then I hope she is wrong. I will support Hillary Clinton 100% if she runs for President and I doubt seriously if she'll have a problem winning in New York but that is up to the people of New York including the military she has supported fully.

Why even approach the enablers of this policy? Bush couldn't do it alone.

There are few things that have simple solutions -

I like Cindy and endorse her pull out idea - but in the meantime they need 30,000 more regular troops over there to get the reserve and National Guard Totals down to where they aren't totally screwing over those in the Guard or reserve.

Also, how do you leave by sending more over there? And then there's the small problem of our PERMANENT BASES, which were always meant to be permanent (around 100,000 troop strength I read somewhere). The reason we aren't leaving is that it wasn't in the plans now or later.

current and must be solved.

Since a pull out would take longer to get agreement on and pull together than would a 30,000 troop increase, the fasterest solution appears to be a troop increase.

If anyone can get Bush to pull out next month, or the month after, or the month after that, I would agree that such a pull out would be better.

But Hillary is being realistic - in my opinion - in going for the doable now so as to solve the Reserve/Guard problem now - while we all work on a final withdrawel ASAP.

THE 14 BASES THAT THE MEDIA REFUSES TO DISCUSS - well - I do love my not controlled by the RW GOP media - they just act like they are.

We could transfer troops at anytime to bring the Guard home. It just takes the power of imagination.

and in the real world of politics, Hillary is spot on in her solution. The billions wasted on the neo-con 14 bases to secure some neo-con dream are just billions wasted while our media sat on its ass saying nothing because they are either lazy or controlled by the right.

Cindy is wrong when she jumps on suggestions of more troops temporarily, because she is only accomplishing a pulling down of the folks that are now on her side, and who will eventually, if allowed to by the left to have enough power, end this evil war for oil and pride of putting down the guy that threatened Bush's "daddy".

Those that say more troops are wrong - are wrong.

I do not say pull out ASAP is wrong. But our Vietnam experience should have taught us that 10 years of saying pull out now (63 to 73) only gets you 60,000 US dead and a few million other dead.

When do folks agree to actually get something done - which means to engage in real politics?

If anyone can get troops out now, God Bless them.

But in my opinion, getting troops out soon is not going to happen. What is going to happen, unless Hillary's troop increase is approved - is that the Guard and Reserve problem will get worse, destroying our domestic and foriegn security.

Sending more soldiers to kill more people isn't helping the reservists or National Guard. It's just prolonging a lost war.

And, wants more troops to continue bloodbath.

crazy activists."

I never did, until now.

Whatever...

:eyes:

How can you support someone who supported a war based on lies?? It's rather DINO to me of Hillary to support Bush's war agenda.

~more from the article~

In an interview after her speech, Sheehan told the Voice she was “so frustrated” by leading Democrats like Clinton “who should be leaders on this issue, but are not.” Already, she has set up a future meeting with New York’s junior senator this weekend. And she plans to sit down with the state’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, too. “It’s time for them to step up and be the opposition party,” she said. “This war is not going to end unless the Democrats are on board with us.”

Local anti-war activists agree, and are busy strategizing on how to kick up the pressure. “There is a real push to put members of Congress on the hot seat,” says Bill Dobbs, of the New York City chapter of United for Peace and Justice. “It’s one thing to put the blame on Bush for this whole mess, but it’s Congress who has the power to stop it. We’ve got to make them pay a price for keeping this war going.”

************************

Go, Cindy go.

as the lobbyist for most of us here, and is doing a very good job of voicing things. Appealing to the the 'softer' side of humanity and for the most part, these are the feminine side of our reps. Some of the men's side also have these softer, caring attributes.
I would expect Hillary to go public with a response soon.

Just saying, the Age of Aquarius is upon us.