How to get Cindy Sheehan out of your face....

First, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, you have to shout: "STOP THE WAR"!!

The Iraq war should be ALL the democrats are discussing. Not minimum wage, and lobbying rules changes and other relatively trivial things.

I get caught in the trap too. I'm thinking, well, they need to start the process on these trivial issues to "get a feel" for the political climate and then get into the more important issues, blah, blah.

NO!
Every hour of every day that this country remains in Iraq is the waste of another life, and a lifetime of pain for those who loved that person. Discussing these other issues is like trying to fix a house that's still on fire. You have to put the fire out first.
Dead people aren't able to worry about these other issues.
Cindy Sheehan is very aware of this fact.

While I agree ending the war is of primary importance - I think there are also a few issues that are also vitally important - esp for those living on the economic margins.

about living on the economic margins.

or who have been living on the streets.

list yer priorities

"When a house is burning you do what?....

Do your taxes
Look for a higher paying job, or lobby for increased minimum wage?
Bitch about interior air pollution?

Or....

if people can't make a living wage and end up as cannon fodder in the service, it's just OK with you.

Please.....yourself.

some join the service and are now at risk compliments of the delusional and diabolical bushgang.

Some time ago, she shocked me and went on a rant about how ticked she was with all the 'Murkins working for Universal Health Care. She thought they were wasting their energy, and all attention should only go to the war.

That's when/why I turned off to Cindy. Until then, I was really supportive of her. But if she is going to be so dismissive of people who can't get health care, then....pppfffttttt.

Actually, there are many more people dying of lack of health care in this country, than are dying because of the war, if she wants to be crass about it.

:(

Thank you for your understanding--I appreciate it. :hi:

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

current healthcare system rather callously. As if - folks who have died or are at risk of dying are irrelevant.

As I said before, I agree that ending this war is a top priority. I am just not ready to completely disregard some issues that threaten Americans lives.

You may not have meant to come off to at least two readers as callously dismissive - but there it is.

And here's an English lesson for you: when someone says "how dare you" it's not a dare to do something.

I never "dismissed" anything I prioritized.

'nuff said

Yer just making grunts cause you got nothing to say.

Ending the travesty in Iraq is of utmost importance, but it does not require letting everything else fall by the wayside to achieve it.

Ending the travesty of mothers dying of cancer and leaving their babies behind because they couldn't afford health insurance is not trivial in any sense of the word, and can no more wait for justice than any other travesty that 12 years of Republican villainy have wrought upon this country and the world.

Democrats can, and will, multitask. I have faith. (Which I haven't had in six years, so that's saying something.)

Goddess bless Nancy Pelosi. And Cindy Sheehan. And everyone fighting the good fight for ALL our lives.

something is either trivial or it is not.

}(

If you want to say "less important" you don't go with the extreme of "trivial" and then try to hedge with "relative".

soundness of the message tells me you have a problem seperating the trivial from the important.

:eyes:
You say something in a stupid manner and then wonder why the response is not good. Have fun with that.

:eyes:

I must be some kind of freeper!

fire. You have to attend to it BEFORE you can hope to solve the other problems or the whole house/country will be destroyed.

All of the other issues are subordinate NOT because they are irrelevant or trivial in and of themselves, but that there will be no means to address them if the country blows all of its resources, which it nearly already has, in a war. The war is destroying the country, morally and financially AT A MUCH FASTER RATE. The other issues are not as immediate a threat to the nation

I also believe that if we can stop war we will go one helluva a long way toward solving alot of other social problems.

This isn't an either or proposition. Nor should it be. I have lived in and around and worked around so much poverty - that it isn't easy for me to dismisss - or to say to those whose wages have been frozen and for whom there simply not enough jobs to find a third one - or to find one that would pay the same as the two currently worked that they should just "wait longer". Tell me how ending the war would somehow "go a long way toward solving" the growing wage gaps - esp in a time of flat wages (at the lowest ends) with esclataing fixed costs (gas, food, etc.)?

Why does this have to be a contest? How does dealing with the Minimum wage prevent working to end the war in Iraq?

that the war is the house on fire before we could agree on much else.

24-7

Cindy's doing her best.

and I applaud anyone protesting the war. But we have to do our part too and hold the feet of Congress to the fire by protesting in mass numbers. Only then will they act to bring the soldiers home. It's hard work defying a President. We all have to do it.

is at the beginning of the game. This isn't Calvin-ball where you make up the rules as you go along, it's our Congress. We're letting the Rethugs know how the game is going to be played and then we commence to playing. We don't need hysterical fans spilling in from the stands while we're still in the preliminary stage of the game, before it even begins!

Talk about counter-productive lunacy!

Julie

stupidity.

:eyes:

Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Let the Dems tell their families that the minimum wage is more important.

You can exercise your own free speech rights without denying them to others. She disrupted a press conference and stole the platform and prevented a representative from speaking. If a Republican did that very same thing, say, supporting a surge, or any other issue of importance to their side of the aisle, we'd be up in arms.

Rudeness sucks. It's not her message that offends, it's her method. You can be creative and grab headlines without shitting on others. IMO.

And FWIW, I am with those who agree that ethics and the minimum wage ARE not 'relatively trivial'--think about this: If we had a living wage, many kids wouldn't feel forced to join the military for three hots and a cot and health care for their families. If we had real ETHICS in Congress, the Brown and Root/Halliburton/Other Defense Contractors wouldn't be able to grease so many palms and ensure votes for war without end, Amen. It is all of a piece--depressed wages and runamok lobbyists have helped keep this war going....certainly not directly, but they've buoyed it. If you chip away at the foundation, the House of War will fall.

thing is not more important.

demonstrators crashed the Democratic National Convention.

"By god, they interrupted protocol!!"


Surely you must realize that if they had filed some lame ass petition requesting a right to be heard, that the message would not have had the same impact, nor history long remember.

"Civility" = "a way of dealing with people and problems that made good manners more important than substantial action." -- William Chafe, Civilities and Civil Rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black Struggle for Freedom.

What worked then is not necessarily as effective now.

Since a large majority of Americans also now wish to end the war in Iraq.

And maybe you missed the crucial "civility" v. "civil rights" point, which is hardly ancient history.

Cindy has been wonderful, although I question her timing yesterday.

did you see this thread?

Rep. John Murtha: Extensive Hearings on Iraq

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3037408

Murtha's change of mind did an incredible amount to change the public's perception about Iraq.

The Sheehans and Murthas of the world .

I wish people would understand that. It's so incredibly politically naive not to.

Cindy Sheehan is not an insurgent trying to take over the government, nor is she protesting an onerous tax on tea. She is a citizen with a right to free speech, preventing the free speech of Democratic representative to steal the expected media coverage of a press conference. She took a lazy way out to get camera attention. It sucked, what she did. Most people didn't hear her message, except perhaps those who already are on her team, and those that did thought "What an asshole." Guess how many people will remember it a week from now? Few, if any.

And the tea party didn't infringe on anyone's free speech. It did deprive the king of some tea taxes, though.

So I can't fathom how you equate the two. Cindy isn't a colonist dressed as an Indian. She's a Gold Star Mother who is apparently taking some shitty advice about how to put her message forward.

Good lord. The point is protest and civil action, and one man's "rudeness" is another's woman's protest.

:hi:

:hi:

that nobody seems upset that a guy who supports more troops in Iraq was talking about ethics?

:rofl:

:crazy:

and getting shirty when I note that they aren't the same at all. The only similarity the two have is that you can eat them both.

There was nothing RUDE about the Tea Party. It was an in-your-face assault, it was vandalism, and it was done by guys in disguise, at night, in secret. It was an economic attack against an onerous royal regime, that worked towards a goal of overthrow.

How you can compare muzzling someone at a public venue to that IS curious. They are both protests, but that is where the similarity ends. Hell, putting a flag stamp on an envelope upside down is a form of protest too, but it's not in the same category as the other two, either....

Why no...it did not. And kids stopped dying because of that demonstration....why no, they did not.

Please....that piece of absurd street theater, and the excesses of the thuggish Chicago cops and mayor, ensured that HHH LOST the fucking election. He lost WEEKS of airtime that would have been devoted to HIS agenda and his plans, that instead was devoted to that coverage and the aftermath. Thanks to that mess, the Democrats were identified with long haired punks throwing molotov cocktails, and utter CHAOS. Nixon, OTOH, was associated with LAW AND ORDER. Put aside the revisionist and truncated history. That disgrace WON the election for Nixon. It wasn't the image we wanted to present, then OR now.

Surely you must realize that had HHH gotten the Presidency, the war would have ended sooner. He was a GENUINE liberal, a Wellstonian figure, and we wouldn't have had to wait until many more thousands had died before we got the fuck out of Nam.

I suggest you read what I wrote. I never suggested that she file a lame petition. She can grab headlines in other ways without stealing the platform of others. She managed to do that in Crawford, she managed to do it when she chained herself to the WH fence....disrupting a press conference just to chant is shitty. She is quite possibly taking bad advice from fringe assholes who are using her to their own ends, but it is destroying her legitimacy as an antiwar figure. It makes people DISLIKE her. If you can't see that, well, you can't see that. But trust me, you're in the very distinct minority if you think her rudeness plays positively and enhances her message, because it does not.

You ever suffer from a feeling of loss due to unmet expectations?

I am not sure where you are going with the 'unmet expectations' comment. I suspect it was an effort at snark, but I am not sure.

The point I am making is that Chicago denied us President Humphrey, while everyone seems to want to equate Cindy Sheehan to everything from the Chicago protesters to MLK. Sorry, they talked about Chicago all the way up to the elections, and they still talk about MLK. No one is talking about Cindy TODAY, except the loyal and unquestioning fans here. She's not on the TV--she didn't even get a full twenty four hours on the news cycle.

I guess daring to critize Cindy Sheehan's methodology doesn't play well amongst the acolytes. It doesn't matter if you agree with her goal, if you don't like the way she goes about it, and dare to comment on it, you are met with astounding, brutal and unremitting intolerance.

It's a bit eye-opening. People don't have to agree, but the incivility and brutal commentary is interesting.

You're spitting in the ocean and expecting praise for it?

It doesn't matter if you agree with her goal, if you don't like the way she goes about it, and dare to comment on it, you are met with astounding, brutal and unremitting intolerance.

The naivete is astonishing -- and it's so counterproductive to even have to waste time discussing it with those of you who don't get it.

No one is talking about Cindy TODAY, except the loyal and unquestioning fans here. She's not on the TV--she didn't even get a full twenty four hours on the news cycle.

You forget: ANY publicity, ANY mention on the news is good. She got on the news. It would've had to have been a more significant action to get your imaginary gold standard of "24 hours." You know, like tripped Rahm or something. Goodness, not even George Bush gets 24 hours all the time. People may not be talking about her on the cable news shows, but you don't know what's going on in people's homes and workplaces.

One pundit I heard -- and this may interest you (or not) -- mentioned that he thought what Sheehan did was great for all the Dems in Congress because it shows that there's a "Left" that's "Lefter" than Hillary Clinton ( :rolleyes: who isn't left at all) and Nancy Pelosi (:rolleyes: who isn't all that Left either).

I'll post this one more time, since people seem to need to read it. I hope you'll spend some time podering it because it is FILLED with truth:

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and never will.” -Frederick Douglass

No one said she was "rude". Double standard much?

When did she prevent Republicans from speaking????

Gee, I must have missed that.

If you are equating her demonstrations in Crawford and at the WH with what happened yesterday, I'm a bit flabberghasted. She taped the mouth of a Democrat, in essence, and stole his platform to voice her opinion. She didn't compete for attention fairly, like she did in Crawford or at the WH, instead, she stole the venue.

It's the theft and the muzzling that are rude, not the act of demonstrating.

Bush's State of the Union address?

Was it the same group of jokers?

Some asswipe cop removed her and a GOP rep's spouse (ostensibly for wearing tee shirts with messages on them) BEFORE the event even started.

So there was no 'disruption' of the event, just a little ex post facto talking head coverage. She did nothing, and indicated that she had no INTENTION to protest during the speech...

The disruption occurred because an overzealous GOP member, or a Cap Cop, decided to preemtively remove her.

She insisted she had no plans to speak out while there, that her only desire was to make a point by her presence at the SOTU, that she would NEVER disrespect the representative who gave her the guest ticket.

I believed her. You didn't? You're saying she LIED when she said that? That she intended to get up and holler during the speech?

Interesting.

No. I'm not the one disrespecting a grieving mother, then whining about disrespectful treatment.

I said she didn't disrupt the SOTU, and you come back with that nonsense. At whom is it directed?

Polite women rarely make history?

Again, it ain't the message, it's the method. That method was lame, and the only people who even REMEMBER it today are posting on this thread, I suspect.

While Pelosi and the others are doing their hundred hours blitz, at least four hundred innocents are dying as a direct result of this illegal, immoral war.

Ethics and minimum wage revision are all fine and good, and you are correct, they could have long term ramifications vis-a-vis our military. However, right here and now people are dying over there. The American people gave the Dems these majorities in order that they end the war, and they need to end the damn thing right quick. In that fabled one hundred hours that Pelosi is promising, at least four hundred innocents are going to die while debate rages about who takes what gifts in exchange for which perks:eyes: As with any great wound where blood is flowing freely, the first and foremost consideration is to stop the bleeding ASAP. Rather than focus on long term solutions(all of merit), let's stop the goddamn bleeding first, and stop this goddamn war. Frankly IMHO, anything less is criminal.

the entire nation would say "You stupid assholes, that's NOT the way to make government work."

Newt Gingrich tried that "My way or the highway" method, and we saw how well it worked for him.

It's all interrelated. The Democrats need to hit heartland issues, one at a time, and grab the EASY ones first, and quickly. They need to share credit with moderate GOP types, too. Then they can build on their success.

And since we are still in the throes of CONTINUING RESOLUTION, drama such as that you propose will make NO DIFFERENCE in the weeks ahead; it won't bring troops home or stop the cash to run the war from spilling through the pipeline--the funding stream is still there.

What you are proposing is making a great big symbolic FUCK YOU, OUR WAY statement, which, because of the way things are set up right now, both budget-wise and owing to Mister Veto in the White House, will have absolutely ZERO effect.

Far better to get a few wins, try to make a few friends on the other side of the aisle, and see if we can't get enough forward motion working so that we can override Mister Veto -- that's how we end this debacle in Iraq.

We simply don't HAVE enough votes to end it now. Even WITH the majority. We've got to bring along the GOP to override that asshole, and that is gonna take time.

I just don't understand why people don't see the big picture here....everyone wants things to happen NOW, but we can't do that without way more Democrats in both the House and the Senate. We don't have the damn votes to override, and we have to compromise to move the agenda forward.

Stop this binary, black/white Dem/'Pug thinking friend. In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of Republicans out there who are also dissatisfied with the war, and want to bring it to an end. A little wheeling, a little dealing, and pretty soon you'll have your precious two thirds.

However even if we can't put together such a coalition, we still have much power. The power of the purse, the power of the bully pulpit, the power of investigation. Any and all of these can be used to either end, or greatly reduce the war. Be creative.

And here you are worrying about the effect of gridlock on public opinion, well gee, don't you think that the public will be even more enraged if the Dems fail to do what the public just elected them to do, ie end the war? The party was given these majorities with one clear mandate by an enraged public, end the war. If we fail to do so, then we can kiss our ass goodbye in '08.

And frankly friend, with Bushboy in the WhiteHouse, there is going to be a certain amount of gridlock on any issue. Minimum wage, ethic reform, and many other such Democratic issuses will get the big veto pen:shrug: We might as well accept that this is going to happen, and find our way around it.

And finally, in the time that you and I have been conversing, another one hundred innocents or so died over there. Tick, tick, tick, time is flying, people are dying. It is absolutely criminal not to address this as a top priority, especially since the people of this nation gave the Democrats a specific mandate in stopping the war ASAP. Anything else is second fiddle so to speak.

My argument wasn't pro-gridlock. and it wasn't "binary" in any way, shape or form. It addressed those here who actually DESIRE gridlock, and who can't see the forest for the trees.

I believe that many GOP legislators are ready to come down on the correct side. They need a little motivation, but they're almost ready.l As for those heartland issues, if they do get the veto pen, those are the ones that the GOP will cross over on first--if they want to keep their seats.

And as for your tick, tick, tick, Congress is working under a continuing resolution. Even if every single member saw the light of day and voted to send the troops home yesterday, assuming Chimpy vetoed straight away and didn't keep the thing on his desk, requiring the Hill to override after a wait for a pocket veto, the troops and civilians would still be in harm's way because the funding stream hasn't run out yet. Finally, while a few innocents continue to die at the hands of Americans, the bulk of them at this stage of the conflict are dying at the hands of other Iraqis. And that is unlikely to change in the near term regardless of our presence...friend.

It's all tied together. Ethics legislation cuts the strings between the lobbyist-war profiteers and the legislature, decreasing the motivation to vote for pro-war legislation. No money, no honey. Minimum wage legislation and healthcare legislation gives kids who can't afford to get by in BushCo America, who need housing and healthcare for their families, an option OTHER than the all-volunteer force to get those things. These "less important" issues influence the big issues. They are all part of the big picture.

Heh. None of these people complaining about Sheehan would say any of this bullshit if they were talking to her face to face.

I can state categorically that I would not hesitate to tell Cindy Sheehan to her face, precisely what I wrote yesterday. Why on earth wouldn't I?

;-)

...but I'm recommending, anyway. It seems obvious to me that stopping the killing is the most urgent concern on our plates.

Good thing we can multitask while we persuade our reps to put the war at the top of the agenda.

... tell her there are MORE TV cameras in another room. :evilgrin:

(Puts of asbestos suit)

:rofl:

January 4, 2007: Demonstrate in Washington DC as Congress opens! Impeach Bush! THE WORLD CAN”T WAIT - DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME!

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3524&Itemid=223#evening

Probably not. :shrug:

and THEN some. But the reality is, there's no real pain with this war. "Virtual demonstration" via keyboard is enough for way too many.

That shit would change right quick if we suddenly had a "no exceptions" draft. Of course, if a Democratic Congress voted in a draft, so that BushCo had an unlimited supply of fodder for his cannons, the same people who put the Dems in would be so outraged that they'd vote Green at the next opportunity and likely ensure that the GOP was returned to power.

A no-win situation in the making, unless one can see the nuance and the necessity for picking one's way through a political minefield.

Democrats should multi-task.

:thumbsup:

dismissing social issues such as poverty, etc.. as trivial is insulting to any American who is struggling to survive the class war going on at home.

We need to address ALL our problems facing us.

I think it's a bit much for you to say Sheehan would think those issues are not important also. She sounds like she cares enough about people to want to help everyone even though her focus is the war.

As if both sets of issues cannot be discussed simultaneously. However, for the criticism of Cindi to have any perceived weight, the false dichotomy of war OR domestic issues has to be accepted.

That is 75% of this thread....chasing a false premise.

Cindi is a citizen and has the right to protest when and where she choses. She is under no obligation to be civil or to benefit the Democrats. Some people act like we own her....we do not, and she has made that clear time and again.

I, for one, support her protesting a corporare Democrat who refuses to touch the Iraq war as an issue. Neoliberals are nearly as bad as neocons when it comes to exercising military might to favor American business. That is the elephant in the room, and Cindi is shining light on it.

As a Democrat...I guess that stings a bit, but as a citizen, I support her fully and only wish I and about 50 million others had her guts.

she certainly does have a right, and she is not owned by us or anyone else (which is part of what makes her message so powerful).

I might argue that she could have had the same impact - and forced a change in the conversation at the press conference due to her presence with a slightly different approach - but that really isn't as much a criticism as much as backseat quarterbacking (ala - had I been in her shoes).

"As if both sets of issues cannot be discussed simultaneously. However, for the criticism of Cindi to have any perceived weight, the false dichotomy of war OR domestic issues has to be accepted."

Say hello to the 110th Congress...get real. One thing at a time. Iraq will be addressed starting the 17th. T-12 days.

"I am glad the President has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces... but this is where the Democrats have been for two years," commented Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the new House Democratic Caucus chairman.) The Democratic leadership promptly pledged to make such an expansion one of its top reform priorities in the New Year.

What Cindy and the other activists did is what we all need to do. Left to itself, the government is going to continue to rubber-stamp the war machine. They will do their job of representing We The People only when We The People make it clear we will let them do nothing else.

Forget "Free speech zones". Take the protests right into the legislative chambers. Be polite, be firm, AVOID VIOLENCE, but get in there and get your message across.

No More War! No More War Funds!

Troops Home NOW!

about this!

:hi:

and we could get numerous other comments from DLCers that would inform us as to why Cindy feels the need to do what she is doing.



:hi:

Democrats have already said that. This is relatively easy stuff to pass, can be done very quickly, and marks clear differences between the parties, and Bush. If Republicans fight it, or Bush vetoes, then the people will quickly see why things are the way they are. That will make it easier to rally support for the more difficult issues, like Iraq.

The war is at its absolute bottom a corporate war. Virtually ALL of our problems stem from corporate greed.

Until we put the corporations in their place, all else is secondary, even this "war".

So yes, fine, tinker at the margins, and the war is not a small issue - I don't disagree with the OP - but until we deal with this we will have to live with this horrible winding down of our society. Our country is dying, and there's no turning back from the disaster that awaits us without addressing this. Either we put a leash on them or they destroy everything that is good about America.

keep it going. War is about expansionism--finding new markets--in a world where territorial expansion is no longer feasible. The corporatists make money in the destruction and rebuilding.

I'm with Cindy!!!

The MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE of TODAY (and tomorrow and the next day and the day after that) is that PEOPLE ARE DYING because of OUR ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION!!!!!!

EACH SECOND that THAT ISSUE remains unaddressed is a SECOND that will cause ALL of us to have BLOOD ON OUR HANDS!!!

Minimum wage, ethics reform, medicare drug care, and all the rest are ALSO important!!

BUT the MOST IMPORTANT thing rigth now is ENDING THIS TERRIBLE LOSS OF LIFE -- This IMMORAL WAR OF AGGRESSION!!!!

BUSH/CHENEY/RICE MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!!

Somebody agrees with me. :evilgrin: :bounce:

for those worried about healthcare -- the cost of this war and the fact that we will be paying for it for some time to come will inhibit getting to healthcare for all.

those bills will have to be paid -- and that will suck away a lot of money for other things.

especially if we go to paygo.

It works.

I don't consider helping families make a better living trivial, ethical reform to stop corruption and other issues as trivial. I think they are important. The war is, too.

Dems can actually walk and chew gum at the same time, you know. But since today was the first day of business I'll need to wait a little longer to see what they follow through with.

I also think it quite appropiate that she interrupted a prowar congressman like Rahm, who will do all he can to keep funding this war!

!!!!

are equally important, because if we allow our votes to be counted IN SECRET, Nothing else will matter, but one thing for sure, without being able to see the votes counted, everything will stay the same. No matter how much you disagree or agree, with each other, Everything Will Indeed, Stay The Same..........

As a good Romanian Friend once said to me (as a joke)

"Stupid Amelicans" I said you mean Americans, He said "yes, Amelicans".

Iraq is a huge drain on our resources and on our national focus. We can do ethics reform and we can do the minimum wage because Bush will probably have no choice to sign that but if we are to get any other serious reforms passed, particularly the expensive kind, we need to end the war first.

Sure Cindy brought a lot of attention to herself but damn, she helped keep the Iraq war in focus. Like her or not, can anything be gained if she gave up and faded away? Repugs would say yeah! -- would you?

Don't tell me I don't want to hear them!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3043259
A quick call to action on the minimum wage.

I disagree that taking action on issues of vital importance to those at the most vulnerable edges of our society somehow distracts and slows down actions towards ending the war in Iraq. I just don't see it as a zero sum game.

If we stop spending the 3.9 billion per week in Iraq, we could easily raise the minumum wage, and dump a load into education.

while we *wait* for that to happen.... more folks have to chose between food/heat/housing... ? Again - why is it an either question?

I have been against this war since long before it started (going back to bush's Sept 17, 2001 speech, where his rhetoric tipped the hat that he wanted to use 911 to expand to fight wars not related to 911 - and Iraq was the clear target). I remain committed to that. Please do not take my statements to mean I do not think that ending this debacle is not among my very top concerns - but I also have lived in and worked with families in poverty for a lot of years and just can't, in good faith, pretend that in the time that it takes for the war to end (and frankly it won't happen over night) that nothing can possibly be done that can help the condition of those most economically vulnerable in our society.

at a time, but the war is central to all other issues at this point in time. Resources depleted by destruction could clearly be used for the greater good. That is why I make it an either question. We both see that resources for the war (I'm throwing this one in)and tax cuts to the richies should be so over by now. The faith based initiative is such a fucking joke. Then there is global warming and energy independence. Solutions to any of these problems may not occur over night as you suggest, but just say end it (war and tax cuts) CAN be done overnight! Just do it! I say just do it!

Stem cell research, student loans, prescription drug prices, the 9/11 commision, the minimum wage, or ethics.

Forget about America, Iraq first..."World Can't Wait," more like "America Can't Wait."

These are important things and the Iraq War is going to recieve due attention after the SOTU, which is just around the corner.

Your absolutism is myopic.

to put on their specks.

but there are other things that need to be addressed as well.

And, at this stage of the game, there are dammed few, if any people in the armed services who were caught totally unawares. If they enlisted or reenlisted after 9/11, then "they knew the job was dangerous when they took it".

good post, happydreams.

:crazy:

Yeah we should wait.. And before someone comes and flames me for not worrying about minium wage and health care I'm one of those people who don't have health care for their families. I have a wife and 3 kids and I worry daily about someone needing medical help. It doesn't change the fact that I sure don't want to have to explain to those soldiers families that thier kid died because Congress was worried about something a little more politically expedient than the war. I wonder what DU will be saying if Bush gets funding for his surge.

edit for speeling