OH BOY This might spell trouble for Hillary unless she gets a handle on it

http://thehill.com/20-questions/20questions-profiles-cindy-sheehan-2007-05-02.html
TheHill.com - 20Questions profiles Cindy Sheehan

it's not a leap at all.

It shows arrogance and ignorance and you wouldn't want to do that.

She's in the pocket of big business. She is a smart person but I feel she lacks core integrity.

Yeah, Hillary will probably pull out of the campaign after she gets wind of that. lol

What can HRC get a handle on ... her excusitis. With all the info coming out now her plaint: if I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted ... is pure crap. She should have known and probably did.

Good for Cindy!

is a liar. That the invasion was based on LIES. That Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (15/19 hijackers plus Osama were Saudis, the other 4 were from UAE, Egypt and Yemen). That a country decimated by the US in 1991 and then kept under sanctions for 12 years could not morph into an imminent threat just before (how convenient)the 2002 midterm elections ... Should I go on?!

We at DU as well as many of our fellow citizens knew this and more. Knight-Ridder journalists knew, Scott Ritter (a weapons inspector) knew. The information was there. HRC was either too lazy to do her own homework, to callous to care (or even listen to the impassioned words of Robert Byrd about ceding such power to the executive), or too craven -- a political coward more concerned with her safe NY Senate seat than the welfare of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis!

BTW, I am equally passionate about (against) all the Dems who aided and abetted * with their 'yea' votes on IWR.

You didn't have to make a choice. What if you were wrong? What if there was some evidence of WMD's we hadn't found yet? What if Saddam had secretly acquired some Sarin? You didn't know that he hadn't. Nobody did. Ritter hadn't been in Iraq since 1998 and the inspectors that were there in 2003 weren't finished yet.

It's so easy to sit back now and claim omniscience with the benefit of hindsight. Knowing Bush lied does not mean even HE knew what was there or wasn't. All it means is that we couldn't trust him.

I didn't have to vote. I mistakenly trusted my D/democratic leaders to do their job, to deliberate about the most important thing they do which is send people in harm's way. I trusted them to weigh the evidence -- all the evidence, to question, to debate.

I don't claim omniscience BUT a resolution against Iraq and the threat of war against Iraq made no sense. If you didn't see Buying the War, you need to. It shows all the information that was available, information that even we, the people, had access to.

Besides, the Bush/neocon hard-on for Iraq was well-known to informed citizens and it should have been to HRC since the cons practically spelled it out in PNAC and sent Bill Clinton a letter in 1997 asking him to sign on to their plan.

So, I repeat going against Iraq made no sense (and it only took COMMON SENSE to see it even then) because:

1) it was spelled out in PNAC long before September 11th

2) how does a country that the US decimated in 1991 and then kept under sanctions for 12 years morph into such a great, imminent threat (by contrast North Korea WAS taunting BushCo with its nukes but NK has no oil and the Bushies were/are afraid of REAL danger, of a real bully)

3) how, in the words of the then and now war hawks (chickenshit chickenhawks during Vietnam), does a country pose an awesome threat and yet war against it is "going to be a cake walk" (Germany in WWII was a THREAT and that was no cake walk!)

4) 15/19 hijackers were Saudis and the 4 remaining were from Yemen, Egypt and UAE (home to be of Cheney's Halliburton ... ain't that convenient?); there was not an Iraqi among them (common sense therefore says the enemy is Saudi Arabia, but oh, yeah the House of Saud is a big Bush buddy, Carlisle Group and all that)

5) the specious, justification talk that ringleader Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi official in Hamburg begged the question why bomb Iraq rather than Hamburg? or Florida or Las Vegas where all the hijackers lived and/or conspired?


So no, I didn't have a vote UNFORTUNATELY, but I read then as I read now. The information was there, and the mess we have now was both predicted and predictable. I knew it and with other activists in October 2002, frantically called and faxed Democratic Congress critters begging them to heed Robert Byrd's words:

"If we are going to make it a blank check, let's make it a blank check right upfront, without all of these flowery figleaves of 'whereas' clauses, and simply say that the President has this power. Give it to him and we will put up a sign on the top of this Capitol: 'Out of business.' Gone home. 'Gone fishing.' Put up a sign: 'We are out of it. We are out of business. We, here in the Congress, are out of business,' may I say to my friend."

I am not speaking from the LazyBoy of 20/20 hindsight. Many of us were aware, alarmed and shocked at what was being spun to us when it mattered, and we tried our damnedest to get through to officials. Would that we, the people could have voted. But I knew then and I tried then and I've been pissed ever since. I even took a long hiatus from DU because of posts like yours ...

And I truly mean no offense. It's just that all the lives lost or forever changed, all the waste and devastation, all the good will destroyed DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN. After the fact speeches, mere reams of words, cannot undo the YEA vote that ceded way too much power to a megalomaniac.

... I had a big long response all typed out, but... ultimately, what I object to is holding so many others perpetually responsible for an act that was undeniably and fundamentally the responsibility of George W. Bush. I don't think the IWR would have made a bit of difference in the end. Maybe it would have, but I doubt it. Why would a resolution enable this war? We didn't have one for Afghanistan or Granada, and probably a few others too. It was a political ploy by Republicans that probably hasn't worked out the way they anticipated, although the story isn't over yet.

I didn't like the idea of bombing Afghanistan just because Osama had camps there. Terorism is not a state or a nation ... and bombing it to bits just made no sense.

And you're right that the IWR was a political ploy. In fact, it was practically unfurled as such after Labor Day 2002 leading up to the midterm elections that year.

If I seem hard-nosed (and I know I can be), it's because I been crazed about this issue and the war it lead to since 2002.

Peace :hi:

from this fiasco someday.

Peace.
:applause:

These threads are great for my list of special friends. :hurts:

:boring:

:shrug:

:)

:)

:rofl:

But for anyone who needs it spelled, out loud or in Sign. I didn't see Cindy spelling anything in that article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iNluiTt3P0

Like HRC gives a rat’s ass about Cindy Sheehan’s story and HRC’s votes of complicity supporting *’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I doubt that one can be both a Cindy Sheehan supporter and champion HRC. (Think: Who would accept funds from Rupert Murdoch?)
If HRC ever comes clean on her votes and gives the Murdoch money back, there might be some news and common ground.

Nothing lost there at the link. Still, a great read for those of us that support Cindy Sheehan.

Note: HRC should have a strike through the R. I don't do HTML.

Cindy Sheehan isn't helping herself when she allows an interviewer to exploit her weaknesses who uses them for fodder to the world. Cindy should have a scripted message addressing the Bush Administration's malfeasance of holding our troops hostage in Iraq against the wishes of the American people and Congress. Then she might see some movement to this impasse. Cindy should be pointing her finger at the people responsible for keeping the troops there, the Republicans, and those Congresspeople who have chosen Bush over the lives of the people they were elected to represent.

And for the rest of your post...countmyvote4real

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH BLAH,........

I support, respect and understand Cindy's work and goals, due to personal experience.



I also support Senator Clinton for President, due to her experience.

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Max Cleland, Ed Markey, Charles Robb, Bill Bradley...shall I go on?

I supported Cynthia McKinney keeping money she received from allegedly disreputable sources. Why should she give it back? I'll take all the money that Rush Limbaugh wants to give me and I hope the Dem presidential candidates do too.

to the RIGHT. :*

BigD might find that offensive!

And by anything else. I mean they don't post at a minimum a sentence or two from the article that they want to be noticed.

Hillary, not hurt her.

that Commander Shrub's ranch was a pig farm before he bought it.


It still is.

:rofl:

And vice versa.

I'm in a rare camp (around here) who falls in between them both. I hate Hillary's positions on the war. But I think Sheehan only serves as a target for the right. Her tone and methods aren't even remotely mainstream, so she gets labeled a kook.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This Cindy thing is going to connect the most with people who already don't like HRC.

Totally unelectable and divisive.

the least.

Hopefully John Edwards will settle the issue early on in the primaries.