There are 10 posts about Cindy Sheehan on the Greatest Page.

Guess many of us here know where we stand. We went this route last year, and it got pretty painful. Good people were insulted then also.

We have a great day coming up....a new Demcratic congress. In my mind not gviing Rahm and Steny Hoyer a chance for their press conference took some wind out of our sails.

I am not a Rahm fan, but he deserved his press conference.

I am all for rallies and marches and protests, but I am not for disrupting Democratic press conferences.

10...ten...posts on the Greatest page. Insults to good people in every one.

We have divisive commentary running rampant, insulting good people.

Coincidence?

Who knows.

I think things happen for a reason. I am anti-war, but I don't think we should attempt to shut down the Democratic voices....looks like that is what is happening. And I am not DLC, not pink tutu, or any of the other terms thrown around here today.

We may (or may not) agree on the subject of Cindy specifically. The fact that so many threads with so much vitriol concerning that subject are so common on this day -- which will of course spill over into the next day and the next -- is no coincidence.

In America, we have a two-party system. For now and for some time to come. People on the harder part of the Left need to consider this. If they undermine the Democrats, the Repubs will resurge. Is this what they want?

Today, Pelosi spoke out against a troop surge---and Congress isn't even in session yet. So, progress is being made.

No one on DU is saying the Left should not speak out. The question is, are they in a coalition with the Democrats at this time---or do they want to undermine them?

over the status quo.

Oops.

You think maybe?

Power that is not used wisely is not much good at all.

their constituents inherently or do they get that way once they get to DC -- that is, once we sent them to DC, us the lowly and the unwise.

And who is depriving 'the Democrats' of their day? No one. We're thrilled as hell they are there. But, when did the wall go up and we didn't get the memo? We're no longer on the mailing list now that our donations have been banked?

That's harsh, I know, but what else are we to think?

Is the leadership you recognize so fragile that they can't take feedback?

/ack

I think we can give them their day, don't you?

this is OUR day.

lol

(Okay, I'll go away now, madfloridian - to print out flyers for tomorrows demonstration. And, Go, Nancy.)

those who disapprove of Cindy are "shining their asses" on their seats.

Since we have weekly protests, are very activist, I very much resent being insulted like I have today...

It is Cindy or nothing, and it is out of control.

We don't have to. And shouldn't -- but keep finding points of agreement. You are right about that.

:)

might better understand that we mean what we say.

For you to assume they will listen to diplomacy when many if not most of "Democrats" have aided the Bush Administration for putting us where we are today, in my opinion, is enabling on your part.

Dear Floridian, you are a good soul, but living cautiously and appropriately harms yourself and others by denying the importance of fighting when necessary and disliking the discomfort of assertiveness. I don't like it either, but if not implemented in situations like we live in today, we will be run over and our lives will become totally expendable to these people, if they aren't to them already.

Polite is going to lead us all to our deaths, including theirs, if we don't stand up for what is decent and humane. Our natural resources, including drinking water and food, and land are being grabbed up and privatized by many of these very people who tout fairness and freedom and equality.

Many believe of equal rights and opportunities for themselves not for everybody else.

They probably don't mean to be ineffective and elitist, but the reality is most of them are and its killing many innocent people, and ruining many more lives.

It is who I am, it is what I know.

It hurts to see the Democrats win back Congress and get treated like this before they even get a chance.

listens. The only thing it occasionally accmplishes is getting attention when there is no other avenue.

Now - after an election that both showed that Bush has little support for how he has fought the war and more importantly put both houses of Congress in our hands, the attantion is there.

We need our leaders to speak out and insure a free honest dialogue on what is happening. We need them to make the case against the surge. We need to make people aware that General Abizaid said in very strong language that adding troops would make things worse. He is the general who has routinely been referred to as the most knowledgable and best. He speaks Arabic and has some Lebanese heritage - he understands the culture and the situation.

Spreading information on his testimony last month before the Senate Armed Services committee is likely to move more people against the surge than seeing Cindy Sheehan. I saw only a clip of the protesters disrupting the meeting - the one thing I would want to know is whether any of the Democratic leaders stepped out of what they planned and spoke to the demonstrators, assuring them that they heard them and that they would use their positions to try to move things in the right direction.

Things don't change unless there is momentum, something out of the normal everyday safety net of convention.

Throughout history those in power have rarely and/or never instigated change without others insisting that change must occur.

The Suffragists, in both England and the United States, began their movement politely asking for the same rights being granted to white men, by white men of course.

In England, women of significant status after years of protest and lobbying Parliament and their representatives, resorted to breaking windows, placing battery acid on their husbands golf courses and other small acts of property damage. This came after years and months of being ignored by those in power, incredible abuse, long prison sentences and terrorist tactics from the white males in power. The women spent years being diplomatic and it got them nowhere but in prison and being force fed when they were fasting like the American "iron jawed angels" like Alice Paul. In time, they decided they had to move to more drastic measures, which considering what had happened to them was mild in comparison. The Suffragists never killed anyone. However, the same cannot be said for the privileged white males in power.

If more of us read history, we'd have a more accurate view of how changes came about in the years before us. Change takes time and struggle. How much struggle seems to depend on the level of flexibility and understanding by those in power. Americans certainly, hopefully, will not have to resort to such measures like harming personal property, and in that sense, what Cindy Sheehan and other spirited activists have engaged in has been the vital exercise of our first Amendment rights. There is a reason it is there. So it is used.

And it will be THE PEOPLE who will FORCE the representatives to put an end to The Iraq Occupation, sooner rather than later.

Don't forget, there's a lot of BIG MONEY that is being made on this Occupation. The Corporations want ENDLESS WAR. We the people must DEMAND that our representatives do the right thing. :patriot:

No, and you can bet Steny wasn't either So their press conference would have been totally beside the point.

What it boils down to is if Cindy doesn't make them hold this administration accountable, they won't. They've said so bluntly many times.

National Exit Polls -- Corruption at Top of Voters' Minds

For the first time today, we have some actual data on the composition of the national electorate.

As reported by CNN, exit polling has begun to trickle out and -- at least in partial returns -- the data suggests corruption may be a bigger issue on voters' minds than previously imagined.

Asked what issues were "extremely important" in casting their ballots, 42 percent of voters cited corruption while 40 percent said terrorism. The economy was cited by 39 percent, and 37 percent mentioned the war in Iraq, according to the CNN report.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/11/national_...

And the house is fully engulfed. Hope that's makes some sense. :)

So no, they were not talking about it today.

I fear the grassroots movement is lacking any sense of responsibility when things like this are done.

There are so many needs of all the people. One person doesn't get to set the agenda and yell everyone else down.

It should be the subject of EVERY press conference until the problem is solved.

We both know it won't be unless we the people make it the subject, so as I see it Cindy is speaking for all of us.

:shrug:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/4/0520/62234

In Nazi Germany, at least the worst crimes were hidden. Today, we have torture pictures all over the world, senseless brutal war, illegal wiretapping acknowledged by the president, and Congress thinks they're going to ignore it all.

I hope to God that Cindy and others make them do the jobs they were elected to do before it's too late.

The DNC's goal it to change the party back from its corporate nature. He has never hidden that goal. It will take time.

The DNC has groups on the ground working, so does DFA, other groups.

Cindy does an important job, but the rest of us do a lot. DFA is organizing on the ground more than ever.

I think that press conferences focusing on process questions are way off the mark. Voting machines, maybe. But ending the war and torture is what has to be done immediately and then six years of shameless, disgusting, unspeakable crimes against the entire world have to be investigated and adjudicated. We owe the world that much not to mention the survival of our own democracy.

n/t

Yes, I think the war is the most important issue. No, the war is not the only issue. The new Congress has many issues to deal with. And guess what? For some people the war in not the most important issue.

or any of the other tootsie rolls on the first-100-hour agenda.

Maybe if enough Cindy Sheehans stop acting polite they will make damned sure that it IS the subject.

I dont see how we can adress ethics reform, etc w/o discussing the unethical means Bush & Congress used to get us into this war- there is not an issue alive that is not DIRECTLY connected to Iraq-be it the budget or ethics.

many pressing problems and things that must be done, and Iraq is one that Congress is least able to control.

Torture is a dead issue-- very few in or out of Washington think it's an ongoing problem that must be dealt with now.

Impeachment? Nice idea but it's just not going anywhere. Without serious public support it just makes the Democrats look like they're getting even for Clinton. When Pelosi said it was off the table she wasn't just blowing smoke-- she's a savvy politician who knew perfectly well that it would cause a meltdown in the House and wouldn't go anywhere in the Senate. We've had years of Republican leadership bullshitting around with nonsense like gay marriage and comatose women and it's time to show the public that Democrats can actually work for a living and not just cause daily diversions.

Nope. Now that we run the place, it's time to show that we can rise above the bullshit and actually govern.

Impeachment might yet happen if there's a smoking gun that inflames the public like the missing tape did to Nixon, but that time isn't here yet.

Did you know that 100 or more Iraqis are being killed in our names every day? Yes, corruption is rampant. No, lobbying reform is not a top priority.

marched, lobbied and supported a lot of organizations that had a shot at stopping it. And when I had the money I supported organizations that tried to help those hurt on both sides of the war.

I was even a GI Rights counselor and thought seriously about going on a Peacekeepers team.

So I know about the war, and I know it is for shit.

But, it ain't gonna end this week. Congress has very little it can do to stop the war or even slow it down at this point. In theory, it might be able to rescind that vote allowing the war to start, and could refuse to finance any more of it, but that ain't gonna happen. They'd have to have enough support to override a veto, anyway, and the constitutional questions would cause more problems than such an action would solve. Lotta political problems in too many districts with rash motions to just pull out, too.

Best we can hope for is them taking a good look at the next supplemental war appropriation and holding hearings on where all the money disappeared to. There is no practical way they can simply order an end to the war-- they have to shove Shrub into ending it.

That, unfortunately, is just the way it is.

or any of the other gigantic crimes against humanity shamelessly carried out by this administration every day.

We need a thousand Cindys to get in their faces and make them do their sworn duty or we won't have a democracy for them to do it in. We barely have one now.

Gee, your priorities sure are messed up. </sarcasm>

There is nothing in this first 100 hours about Iraq or impeachment. I support Cindy holding their feet to the fire.

She is a mom with a good sense of her own intuition. She needs to speak up/out/intervene when she feels she must. Go get them Cindy. Bring them home.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Student loan interest rates are not killing 100+ innocent civilians per day.

Of their economic livelihoods. I'm sorry economic insecurity and poverty at home bother me even more than Iraq. Yes, Iraq is a part of the budget fiasco, but it's not even the biggest part (tax cuts? Katrina? Medicare D?).

Our leaders in Washington are doing the best they can and all too many on the DU left here, aren't willing to engage in asserting realistic standards and expectations. This is important because we are the activist core of the party, we are the primary voters and donors.

because that makes me want to throw up.

:rant:

What I'm saying is that I don't blame the Dem's for trying to help people in America, what makes you think there aren't people here dying from homelessness! From lack of medical care! From diseases caused by corporate pollution! From gang violence and police abuse! I bet you it's alot more than 100 people a day.

Take the rose colored glasses off. People are dying everywhere, and don't I blame Nancy Pelosi for trying to help the people she can in America. I'm tired of the screaming meanies who say "nothing matters but Iraq," what ReaganBushCo has done is much much bigger than Iraq and it's going to take alot of hardwork to get the country/and its foreign policy back on track. They are doing their best and if it is not good enough for you that's too bad.

And to address your rude comment in particular: why is the economic future of this country not important? I'm not worried about myself so much as I am about the next generation. What will their America be like?

1) What Pelosi et al. are doing has NOTHING to do with justice, morality, right or wrong. It's all about electoral politics and a decision was made that Iraq, torture, and impeachment don't sell well in swing states so out they went.

2) Innocent Iraqis are being MURDERED in your and my names. That's a hell of a lot more important than any social safety net issue, sorry. The New Deal has been around for 70 years and it can wait a month or two for its massage.

1. What about Katrina can that wait? What about prescription drugs seniors need to live? For all too many it is food, rent and heating or prescription drugs. So what if it's about electoral politics? That's America, and at least we won the last one. Elections matter, and who wins them matters, if you don't realize that it is important for the Democrats to win elections maybe you should hit the books. Investigate, Inform the Public, Impeach, Convict. That's what I want. But you've got to realize, what is said on DU is much different than campaign messaging. Get over it.
2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3044667

I'm done, don't bother to respond.

:think:

Get over yourself.

Lame strawman attempt.

are not to my knowledge being dragged out of their houses at midnight, raped, tortured, killed, and left face down in garbage dumps.

At least not yet.

Yeah, that's soooooo much better.

Carville saying that Howard Dean should be replaced by Harold Ford right after the biggest electoral Democratic victory in decades! Make no mistake about this, the wing that Carville represents is the same wing that appeased Bush on Iraq, and opposes marriage equality for gays and lesbians. They are now trying to pretend that Iraq is a non-issue, that they were given control of Congress because of their pretty faces, rather than being a mandate for changing course in Iraq.

The mandate is to change course in Iraq, and the people will hold the Democrats' feet to the fire to make sure that they stop Bush's madness.

Time to introduce a new Kerry/Feingold resolution!

Not bad at all, and a few surprises. I don't see the word health care mentioned...Medicare comes first which is health care. I can't seem to link to the original poll at CNN so here is the Kos link.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/4/0520/62234

Think this order: favor/oppose/no opinion.



Sounds like the Dems were right to try to have an ethics press conference today.

and jumped the shark with this one. I'm not going to guess why, but she didn't seem to realize or care that protests are tricky enough when timed right, and this this one was definitely not timed right. Or so it seems to me now.

But what's with all this screaming about it? Why do so many people have to get so bent over an incident that will probably be forgotten next week?

Either it worked or it didn't work, and it's Cindy's problem if it didn't and everything will be all right if it did. Either way, nothing we can do about it now.

Talk is cheap, though.

of what real people are thinking and want.

Period.

If she's jumped the shark (and this has been claimed about 29 times) she's jumping the shark with us.

Cindy Jumps the Shark, riding Fonzie's motorcycle, cheered on by Pinky Tuscadero.

Sorry thats just too silly.

Out: Cindy Sheehan
In: Britney Spear's naked hoo-hah!

So I appreciate your sentiments. I'm not a big Rahm fan either. But Cindy's approach seemed so... Nader-ish, to me I guess, if that makes any sense. As in how Nader always seems to approach things by reserving his harshest criticisms for Dems instead of Repubs.

Has the ring of truth there.

Now that she's holding our "representatives" feet to the fire, she's suddenly a problem? Fuck that. From the beginning she's been about trying to stop the insanity that is this war. If our own elected Democrats won't do what we elected them to do, then fuck them too. There's NOTHING in this bally-hooed first 100 hours about the war. NOTHING. Here's hoping Cindy is out there every damn day, in their faces, and holding them accountable.

to hold the feet to the fire at least until those feet were actually beside the fireplace.

Impatience is not always a virtue.

Tell their families as well.

When did that election occur?

Speak for yourself but don't presume to speak for anyone else on this site. You certainly don't speak for me.

And pro War people are in a minority at DU, as they are a minority in the the current voting public.

I dont see why you take umbrage with the suggestion that most DUers AKA "this place" supported Sheehan when it was easier to blame the war on just Bush-it is pretty much a fact and no one needs to be "elected" to point that out.

Since she's hurting that very cause, the two have nothing to do with each other. And, your insuinuation that if you don't support her you're a pro-war DLC-type is insulting - you just keep offending, huh? That's a sad comment about you, not the rest of us.

Look around...you may want to pretend that "most DUers" support her, but that's not true anymore - her actions have lost her a lot of support, including mine.

only just took their damn seats. There's nothing to hold them accountable TO yet.

And I didn't walk the streets getting their asses elected only to have them shot down before they get started. Fuck THAT.

The reason why it appears that some are guilty of being more harsh on DEMS is because they EXPECT republicans to do nothing but lie, cheat and steal.

When they see "the good guys" do things that could be read as turing a blind eye to it, or even going along with it, then yeah, the disappointment is much greater and the subsequent criticisms can be seen as harsher. I admit that I feel this way from time to time.

I agree with you that Sheehan is taking a page from the Nader play book on this one- but then again, she never claimed to be a partisan Democratic and never agreed to play by our own not-so-great until '06 strategical playbook.

I disagree that she is being harsher on DEMS- she at least waited until we won and were in a position of power before she started stalking DEM leaders in the same manner she has done to Bush.

I guess DEMS will either have to ban her like Bush did, or start taking a more moral & fact based position on Iraq.

Timing is everything.

I think it need to be exposed.

Part of the solution or...?

All the beltway bloviating is just that.

This non-veto-proof, non-filibuster-proof majority is entirely impotent. They have no magic potion to circumvent "rule by signing statement." Heck, the Repubs could even rubber stamp the entire populist agenda, secure in the knowledge that it will all be "Unitarily Executed" without a peep from the Euphemedia. Then what?

You see? Nothing actually happens. No cause for self-congratulatory gala luncheons. (At whose expense, I'm wondering.)

The only real mandate the Dems got from the election -- which was not "pro" anyone/thing and not merely anti-war; but rather exclusively anti-bush-regime -- comes down to impeachment.

Only Impeachment has any substance.

Only Impeachment ... is real.

RE Cindy Sheehan, et. al.: Anytime real people walk into those buildings and speak real truth, face to face, with any of the members of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy it's worth 1000 smiling press conferences to "our side."

--

Cindy is not.

operatives. Cowardly to the core. yes, cowards.

Everyone knows "they" are all the same guy furiously typing from his blackberry while sipping martinis at an upscale K-Street watering hole-the mods just THOUGHT they banned that guy. ;)

As the old movie line goes, Cindy Sheehan could have been a contender. Her touching story, the woman who stood up to a President for the love of her son, would have made a perfect Lifetime or Hallmark Family movie. But she let her cause get hijacked by various fringe left groups and it became much more than it originally was. It became a parody of something good and decent. Because Cindy Sheehan, in disrupting a Democratic press conference on ethics reform yesterday, became the proverbial dog who bit the hand that at least partially fed her.

The Democratic party, out of power for 12 years, was to begin a sweeping first 100 hour marathon of legislation and the before mentioned press conference was helping kick it off. The Democratic party, who themselves have plans to create policies to end the debacle in Iraq, just aren't being fast enough for Sheehan after being in control of Congress for mere hours. Isn't it time, though, that the left call a spade a spade? Sheehan is no hero. At the very least, she appears to want to "Gore" the Democrats, to play spoiler in true Nader-like fashion. Will she follow us from press conference to press conference as we lay out our plans on the economy, Iraq, ethics, and education and heckle us like some cheap comedy club whore? Not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, eh Ralph, uh... I mean Cindy?

But at least the curtains are closing on her tired act and I can truthfully say I've never been a fan . Her anti-semitism, her threats to run against Democrats for political office, her support for third party candidates, her calls for the National Guard to leave "occupied New Orleans" after Hurricane Katrina, and her condemnation of the Afghanistan invasion are just some of the reasons Sheehan, like a once worthwhile TV show that keeps hanging on for one more season, has finally jumped the shark.

Hopefully the few Democrats that have supported her will now finally cancel her sitcom, too.

I actually stopped reading Cindy threads about a year ago when I got sick of her antics and she began hurting the very cause she was supposed to be promoting.

However, I've read several today and yesterday and am heartened by the increasing realization here on DU of that very fact. Let's not take one step forward and two steps back anymore!

"Sheehan is no hero"

Wyldwolf you never disappoint.

"her tired act, never been a fan"

"cancel her sitcom"

Where was the laugh track for when her son died? When she was vilified by you and others for daring to interrupt your lord and savior Immanuel?

...based on, apparently, just a skim of my post.

Where was the laugh track for when her son died?

There was none. But there sure is at present since her mission has been hijacked by circus clowns like "World Can't Wait" and others.

When she was vilified by you and others for daring to interrupt your lord and savior Immanuel?

LOL! You're stealing my lines. But yes, I do vilify her for interrupting a very important news conference.

The name Emmanuel (lol on edit fixed spelling) lends itself to those kinds of religious puns :)

Yeah I guess it's too bad the world cant wait circus terrorist cell :+ has sinisterly snared poor defenseless and hapless Cindy in their unfortunate and unseemly protests. :eyes:

...and World Can't Wait - the organization that told people NOT to put time, money or resources into the Democratic party. Run by C. Clark Kissinger involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party which advocates armed ovethrow of the US Government, a Maoist vanguard party, and was the national secretary of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which, in 1969, became the Weather Underground. He was a strong supporter of Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979 and supported Bob Avakian's work to build a real communist party in the U.S.

Swell guy. Swell organization. Good for Democrats. Not.

Being from Berkeley I realize there are goofballs in the leadership of ANSWER who tolerate bigotry. I'm not OK with that.

Your scary communist bed time stories, while true don't ruffle my feathers. But they do scare some people, and it's good to take those 1950's boogeymen out for a walk every few years to see who is still under the sway of the brainwashing.

The folks who have been right from day one were not stupid enough to trust Bush-unlike the clowns who trusted him or pretended to trust him to begin with and unlike those clowns who even still support the war.

The folks who were DEAD WRONG and trusted Bush and supported the war and set up the DEMS for failure in 04 as "flip-floppers" now call the people who were all along moral & right "clowns"- too funny.

It's a shame that some will call people who were moral and right all along "clowns" just to defend those who were neither moral or right in their war postions.

If she and those who dont trust Bush are as fringe as you claim-then there is no need to demonize them as clowns or hijackers- voters (who coincidentially also do not trust Bush OR support the war)will disregard her and them.

Problem for you is that a majortiy of voters have joined those who were right all along in not trusting Bush or supporting the war-while Rahm and others are still making excuses for why they were dead-wrong all along.

:yourock:

My frame of mind has me wondering if she was worried about the first 100 hours, or the Dems taking Congress, at all. My reaction yesterday hinged on thinking that Cindy was targetting the Dems as a group with her actions.

I'm thinking the news conference got targetted because of who was running it, and that was the whole reason. Nevermind what Rahm was doing there, which had a value to the new Congress. It wouldn't have been targetted at all if not for the man running it.

I feel a notch better about what she was doing if it wasn't the Dems as a whole, but a particular Dem she was after.

I guess that makes a difference to me. Whether it makes a difference to others, I don't know.

we agree for once...

I don't mind taking wind out of that particular sail.

The attacks are getting worse on those who don't think she should have broken up the press conference.

Just wondering, how many heard Jack Murtha on CNN this evening? Anyone? He did not seem too inclined to give Bush his surge.

I guess those who are in Cindy's camp look on the rest of us as not accomplishing anything. I hate that aspect of this.

God Bless Cindy!

The DLCers are NOT on firm ground to alienate the Moderates and Liberals.

Next time when we cast our votes, we will NOT Forgive.

I am wrong. The only way is to admit it.

I do NOT want us to lose THOUSANDS more troops on "a lie."

If that, to the elites, makes be brusque and rude, too damn bad. :P

We're here and we're going to be heard.

Not on TV but organizing on The Net and Protesting on the streets.

Bank on it DLCers. Know that the more you disrespect us, the harder we will push back.

You can only lose IF you "play ball" with Dear Leader. ;)

Rachel Maddow is saying it is good she embarrassed the Democrats...before they even got a chance.

And nothing I have done as an activist is worthy if I think Cindy was rude to take over a press conference of our Democrats.

It says that Cindy is talking what Americans feel.

Regardless of how much money, mine included, is flowing into the Democratic party.

She is talking the truth.

I am a very strong supporter of the true Democrats, and as such have been considering withdrawing my support.

Governor Dean was a primary reason for maintaining my support and yet I see him pulling away, for whatever reason.

I still hold he is more a Democrat than 99 percent of those in Congressional office. I am not a fool to see that he is not outnumbered. However, what do we do as activists? Promote an agenda and a group that has animosity and contempt for us?

Governor Dean continues to do the best he can. I continue to believe that is true. Yet for those of you to seemingly criticize someone who has experienced the most acute form of pain with their child being murdered really, for no reason other than for oil profits of the Administration, well, what does it say Floridian? You can preach all you want, but the painful reality of what people have personally experienced weighs much more than protective words.

Then he would not have to worry about Cindy Sheehan.

Wind from his sails? All he has to do is agree with the people who got DEMS elected and vocally oppose more troops.

I am all for supporting DEMS when they are right.
When they are wrong, I wont have them make me out to be liar by supporting them.

I dont have a problem with Sheehan protesting war supporters- I have a problem with war supporters.

It's very simple- if you want war-protesters to "sit down and shut up" then stop supporting the war.

I don't like him but she broke up an ethics press conference before they even took control today.

No chances given here unless one supports her fully. Just like last year.

maybe she feels that if she does not hold their feet to the fire from the get-go, they will try their best to abandon the moral and fact based positions many of us assumed they would hold.

I dont fault Sheehan for being skeptical of Rahm and company- or thinking that she needs to get a head start on holding them accountable.

Nothing hubby and I have done matters unless we approve of her.

My point is simple- if you dont want Cindy protesting you, then support withdrawal from Iraq- in a vocal and honest manner- no spin or hedging or carefully choosen words needed. Just say "I am commited to getting us out of Iraq ASAP-no more troops- and here is how I'm gonna do it..."

If you disagree, then expect her to protest you-right or wrong.

The "She needs to sit down and shut up until we figure this out" business aint gonna fly- Cindy never claimed to be a partisan DEM.

The good news is that if she is as fringe as some claim, then no one will regard her or listen to her anyway.

Where did you get that?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/838

You are correct to point out that I was not being fair in phrasing it that way.

Unbelievable Floridian you would defend someone who needs absolutely no defense.

He has enough high paid attorneys.

I assumed he was DLC and hawkish. Am I jumping to conclusions?

If he and the other "conservative" Democrats who he seems to to lead were vocal, frank and blunt insteading of using "safe" language and waiting to see what the media says is the most popular position-then I doubt you would even have to ask.

I honestly dont know what his exact position today at this minute is either- which is a good as reason as any to hold his feet to the fire on this issue- perhpas if we who got them in power DEMAND a clear, frank position, maybe-just maybe-we will get it.

was that Cindy was going after "the Dems" before they had a chance to get their act together.

It occurred to me today that she wasn't going after "the Dems" but specific Dems who are either hawkish, or known to be more Conservative. I find that more palatable. I'd like to think she was being very specific in her target. I'm hoping that she realizes that some, like Pelosi and Murtha, are on her side. That she's pinpointing targets as opposed to firing buckshot.

Or maybe I still need more caffeine.

n/y

It's not part of why we were voted in or anything. Nope. Nosiree.

pooer ethics is why we were not allowed to INVESTIGATE the false claims BEFORE we went to war. Rahm could have EASILY tied that kind of GOP behavior to ethics reform.

Iraq is THE all encompassing issue- all roads to lead to Iraq and how we got there and where we are going with it.

To side-line Iraq as a main issue is the same strategy that Lieberman and Bush supporters wanted us to do:

"Besides Iraq, what problem do you have with Lieberman" etc. etc.

Which makes it suspect to me.

All roads lead to Crawford.

n/t

to realize that it is the Commander in Chief who started the war and it generally takes 2 branches of government to end it. The real danger is defunding the troops, that opens it up to all kinds of spin.

They will blame us for it if it is not over by '08- count on it.

'06 suggest you may be right about the public- they are smart now on this issue- and if they cant tell the difference b/t the GOP & DEMS on ending Iraq, we are in trouble like we were in '02 & '04.

Also-If voters are as smart as we would like to think-then cutting funding for the war in conjunction to cutting troop levels will make sense to them.

They don't believe we should cut off funding for the troops and frankly they're right and the Congressional Leadership is on the record agreeing w/that viewpoint.

I'm optimistic.

don't dare pull the rug out from the War Profiteering Corporate Conglomerates that keep FAR too many of them fat, sassy and SILENT. It's criminal that our party is backtracking now. In the feigned show of bi-partisanship. They KNOW that if the republicans were in charge that they would continue to be shut out. Many are invested int War Profiteering Corporations up to their eyeballs and didn't want to withdraw out of Vietnam either. However, the AMERICAN people (no action to date from legislators) went into the streets and DEMANDED that both parties end the madness that was "The Vietnam Conflict."

Not one more soldier should die for this immoral occupation ... this LIE. I lived through Vietnam and almost lost my older brother to THAT LIE. Many of us vowed NEVER AGAIN! I'll be damned to hell if I lose my moral compass and NOW permit my party to slink into the corners as King George sends 20,000 to 40,000 of our beloved *treasure* to go kill and die for this travesty.

No Slack! Not one more senseless death of a soldier or catalyst to spur even more sectarian killings should be condoned. If the Democratic Party Leaders entertain Mad King George's DEMAND for this sick-minded "Surge and Accelerate" :wtf: crusade, with great sorrow I say, "Damn them!"

Bring the troops home from this horrible farce of an occupation. ASAP!

Investigate, inform, impeach...that's what ended Nam, that's what will end Iraq. Pelosi has committed to "responsible redeployment" which is essentially a gradual withdrawal.

You'd make a great preacher, but a crappy Congressman.

freshman Senator's comments, you attack the person. :shrug:

P.S. The translation for the term "responsible redeployment" is "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!"

We've FAILED ... more troops or any lame strategy doesn't have a ghost of a chance of working because 80+% of the Iraqis want us OUT NOW. We do not legally belong in THEIR COUNTRY.

Oh, yeah, we must wait until we reach 58,000 troops dead and oodles of creative *strategies* before the war profiteers will have their fill and give the legislators permission to pull out.

Were you out of grammar school when we were *kicked out* of Saigon in 1975? That is, did you fully absorb the FACT that when we lost the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, no escalation or military strategy in the world could win THAT war for us?

Bring the troops home NOW or offer up your own family to go kill and die for a bunch of lies and corporate war profiteering. Amen! Can I get a witness?

I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out how your rhetoric is a bit overwrought, and how you oversimplify history in order to make moral determinations that may or may not be relevant to the present. So yes, maybe I am attacking you, but really I'm making a judgment on your comments, that's not personal, that's debate.

Say what you want...but alot of smart folks disagree with you on the correct path out of Iraq.

:shrug:

lessons from Vietnam. Hell, from all of Military History, a course that I excelled in prior to being granted a Regular Army Commission in 1982. My experience is not shallow. However, in order the shake people up, you have to get to the point.

Granted, Jim Webb is a highly intelligent man; a graduate from the Naval Academy; and a gifted fiction author. My point is that they are now allowing themselves to get caught up in the "beltway fandango."

I've enjoyed working in Military, Government Service and Civilian Business atmospheres. If you want to get down to the true underlying motivation for remaining in Iraq until we get rid of Mad King George, FOLLOW THE MONEY - Specifically, the power that complements the best interest of the large corporations who are making "a killing" (pun intended) though the continuation of our Iraqi Occupation. And yes, it's an occupation, otherwise, we would be presently redeploying to bases in Kuwait and the UAE.

I regret that I can not stay purely academic when my husband (Retired Marine)and I have family members and friends serving in Iraq as we type. Yeah, I agree 100% that Jim Webb is a better man than I. :P However, Military Service runs in both our families. I know what's going on and it makes me weep. Just because we don't have national service, I grieve for those who are being drawn back into that hellhole for the 3rd, 4th and 5th time.

All this political ass grabbing in D.C., Bush's Surge and pseudo-acceleration strategy, will serve only two purposes: 1) to continue to markedly increase the profits of all privatized companies serving the occupation; and 2) needless killing and dying of American Troops and Innocent Iraqi Civilians.

Mark this: As soon as they begin, body - count numbers will be all the rage. The foregoing is all just smoke and mirrors meant to pacify the populace.

Just like Vietnam and the Brit's previous ass-kicking in the early 20th Century in Iraq, NATIONALISM will prevail. When 80+ % want us out and 70+% think it's OK to kill American Troops,

You tell me, what the hell are we fighting for? The Iraqi People loathe us, with good cause. We could have came in with overwhelming force, secured the communities and provided goods and services to THEIR PEOPLE first. But BushCo. wanted to secure the OIL fields instead of security for the Iraqi people and safeguarding the vast expanses of ammunition dumps.

Again, we may rack up high body counts gleefully reported on every edition of the Cable News shows; and WIN every damn battle from now until Dear Leader leaves office in 08', but we have already lost this war. There's nothing good that can be done with a continued occupation. It's BEYOND time to re-deploy, i.e., civil war is a budding. :(

This is my point and this is what the leadership is reflecting (I think they're right): unlike Vietnam where withdrawal was drawn out the political consensus in Washington is that we need a prompt, but orderly withdrawal from Iraq. I don't support this war one bit. But I don't think the nation or the military is served by defunding the war, even if there is significant waste. The media keep bringing up this notion of the purse strings because it is divisive; don't let them break our unity.

We're getting out of Iraq as faste as we can, but it is beyond clear that the "Sheehan crowd" isn't prepared to let Harry, Nancy and Howard do their jobs. Rather, they want an emotional reaction, that although valid in conception, is quite ineffectual in ending the war. There are some credible historians who speculate that the anti-war movement actually prolonged the Vietnam War by polarizing the country. Now, I don't think that's the whole truth, but I think its a proposition that must be considered.

To get really academic:

First Indochina War -1948-1958
Second Indochina War - 1959-1975
Third Indochina War - 1975-1979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Indochina_War

I'm going to call your attention to the Third Indochina War, which IMHO opinion includes both the Vietnam-Cambodia conflict and the Sino-Chinese conflict. The lesson of the third phase in relation to the second is that it reflected the complete incompetance of the Americans in providing for a major power vacuum. What do you think is going to happen in Iraq if we were to pull out suddenly? Genocide and possibly outside intervention by Syria/Iran/Turkey. Now this is not to say that there is not already genocide, but simply to acknowledge that the stakes are still very high. So yes, nationalism will prevail, but who's nationalism? Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish?

The only way I would support a surge is if it is short-term and linked to a eventual withdrawal. Bush will not agree to that, so its a dead end. So what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are left with is the following:

"Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq."

An increase in troop levels may be neccessary in order to provide protection for training programs and withdrawal; we are leaving in due course. Call this corporatism if you want, but the Democratic leaders in Washington are making a very fine, but extremely important distinction between "surge and acceleration" and "phased redeployment." This is significant, and frankly it is the most important paragraph of the letter. The media keeps asking for our plan, here it is in plain terms. It's not pretty and sweet sounding, but it is the reality on the ground there and some very smart people who have been on the ground there repeatedly are supporting it, so if you don't believe me and don't believe them, I don't know what you're going to do when the United States is still in Iraq at the end of 2007.

The line in the sand has been drawn, we are leaving but it is going to take time to prevent total anarchy. Civil war is in full bloom at it is our unfortunate responsibility to give the proponents of secular law and order in Iraq a chance to succeed. Do we really want Moqtada Al-Sadr to be dictator of Iraq? Do we really want another 50-100 thousand dead Iraqis? There is no victory, but there is better and worse.

This personal for me too, but I don't let the personal horror of this effect my attempt at reasoned judgment. Maybe I'm young, but maybe that means I see things a bit clearer, because I see Vietnam in retrospective as opposed to the immediate. I'm sorry. :cry:

PS. I've had dedicated schooling in both Vietnam and international relations theory.

PPS.

http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Diplomacy-Appleman-Williams/dp/0393304930/sr=8-1/qid=1168054699/ref=sr_1_1/103-3008769-5074229?ie=UTF8&s=books

Williams does not totally abandon the concept of America as a force for good in the world.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Old-Wars-Organized-Violence/dp/0804737223/sr=8-4/qid=1168054806/ref=sr_1_4/103-3008769-5074229?ie=UTF8&s=books

Excellent theoretical work.

In any event, we need to be out LONG before '08 and then we wont have to even debate it.

Dont get me wrong- "cutting funds" by itself could be easily spun against us- but I think if you start scaling back on troops and presense-ending the war so to speak- the public will understand the logic of eventual fund cuts-especially if DEMS articulate that those funds will be used for (insert popular issue here)instead.

I never suggested we frame anything in terms of "cutting funds to the troops" to begin with...I would think the best way is to cut funds after most of them are on the way home.

;-)

I'm starting to think this has less and less to do with Iraq and more to do with a power struggle within the democratic party.

democrats and the grass roots sponsored democrats. The corporate demo's sound a lot like the republicans. This has to be worked out or we will loose in '08, again.

which Dems are not corporate?

not any Senators. I just wish there was some way to shrug the yoke of corporate influence, but don't have much hope. The corporations own the President and most likely a high percent of Senators. The democrats have control of the HOR but many are also corporate like the republicans, so the corporations still have control.

Honestly the only real reform I can see us getting passed is the minimum wage. Ethics reform is a good idea, but it's not going to change much. If we wanted to really end lobbyist influence over our legislators we need to ban PAC contributions. We can't do that while the media is focused on Iraq night after night after night. We can't spend more on health care and education until we stop spending money on the war.

The Iraq War is consuming the country's resources and attention and any real attempts at domestic reforms while we're still there just aren't going to work.