My worries about Cindy Sheehan and her "bait and switch" with Congressional Dems

This is taken from my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3367092&mesg_id=3367092

I remember demonstrations against the war before it started-- and before Cindy. The demonstrations were large, in many cities, but they didn't get the coverage they should have. It was clear that demonstrations were not of interest to the M$M. They still don't seem to be, no matter how bad the war/occupation gets.

What does seem to capture media interest are individual people whom they can quickly make into celebrities. Cindy at Crawford became the reality show of the summer of 2005, probably because by that time it was clear that Gulf War II was not the "quickie" that Gulf War I was, and even some media types realized that a quagmire was ensuing. Because individuals in the media are just as mesmerized by the "reality show" as any other audience, they found the Cindy story compelling TV. The anti-war movement needed a voice and moveon.org gave Cindy support.

The anti-war movement is still putting pressure on Congress (now Democratic) to end the war, but people (including DUers) forget that Washington politics moves slowly, especially when the executive branch is so heavily one party and the Congress is (not so heavily) another and the Supreme Court is weighed down by neocon corporate-theocratic majority. And of course, the Senate still has that scourge Lieberman, but that is another story.

Nonetheless, the anti-war message IS getting out. We have some Republicans breaking ranks, which is what the Dems need before taking on an appropriations bill for Iraq, which they are about to do. No, it's not happening this minute, but Washington time does not always allow for instant change.

What bothers me about Cindy now is that she has done a bait and switch on the Congressional Democrats. Her campaign in the summer of 2005 and her tireless work through 2006 was about ENDING THE WAR. And that does seem to be Pelosi and Reid's focus. They have to tread lightly with such a slim majority and that powderkeg Lieberman ready to go Republican at the drop of a hat. (I think Lieberman is a MAJOR impediment, and that is underplayed at DU. We're blaming Pelosi for not getting the ball rolling, but when Lieberman is at the other end of the court threatening to stop the game entirely, the ball can only go so far.) Even so, Pelosi and Reid are pushing, small steps at a time.

But, now, Cindy is changing her tune with the Congressional Democrats: ending the war is not enough; Pelosi has to now start impeachment hearings or risk a challenge in the general election to someone who will get completely destroyed in the Washington game (should she win). Cindy is an activist: she can shout and scream and get attention for a cause and not waver. That is great for an activist. What she is NOT is a politician, and as much as you might hate politicians, they have skills that are crucial to moving 535 people to a single goal. Can you imagine Cindy's first month in office? She would be clobbered by the Washington insiders who would consider her naive and she would be rendered ineffective almost immediately. She would get LESS done than Pelosi or anyone else. She'd be a deer in the headlights.

Cindy needs to stay an activist and not get involved in politicking. She also has to stop this unfair bait-and-switch tactic. She wanted Congress to stop the war, and Pelosi and Reid are working, behind the scenes, to get that done. Congressional Republicans are not breaking ranks just by accident. It's been months and months of shaking hands and arm twisting, and convincing Republicans that it is not in their best interest to keep this war going during election season. Yes, it's selfish self-interest and not moral clarity that is driving many Congressional reps and Senators, but either way, they are now talking about withdrawing troops and benchmarks and NO ONE is saying "cut and run" anymore.

Ending the war is on the table. It will take time, especially with the stubbornness of the executive branch and their complete lack of shame and integrity. But it will happen.

Instead of celebrating that the "radical" notions of John Kerry and John Murtha are now under serious discussion, Cindy is emotionally dissatisfied with all Democrats and has decided to attack them. Maybe it's because she feels snubbed? * Whatever Cindy's emotional needs are, she needs to get them met without destroying the party--and the movement--that has been trying to end this war since before she came on the scene.









Edited to remove the following: Maybe it's because when she met Dubya, he was nice to her. (I hear he's actually very persuasive one-on-one.) This meeting was in 2004 and predated her activities and therefore is moot. Thank you to the DUers who pointed this out.

The rest of the argument still stands.

I'll give this well thought out post both!

The Democratic party congressional leaders act like they can't do two things at once. Where does this author get that they are trying to end the "war"...can't even call it an occupation. These people couldn't even handle a filibuster by repubs on an issue which clearly supports the troops (the Webb-Rangelamendment.) These dems are not doing what they were elected to do. They show themselves to be lame, lazy, and without backbone. Sheehan got no real support from them except a lot of loudmouth political rhetoric when they tried to "use" her mission to their own ends. Congressional Dems are real good at pointing fingers and saying see how bad, but Repubs just say Boo and they back off.
Pelosi sees impeachment as "a waste of time".
There is no downside to impeachment. It would strengthen support for the Democratic party who would be seen as strong for standing up for the principles of the constitution. It would call Bush/Cheney to account and curb the outrage of the public who is united behind this cause so it would help unify our nation. A nation that feels ignored by Congressional democrats.
We demanded they not give in to Bush's war funding bill...we were ignored, but hey, only about a 150 more deaths on our side till September.
We demand that senate dems make the senate repubs filibuster every day. Go on record, with daily press coverage showing that they are against letting the troops rest between deployments. I mean they had enough votes to pass the Webb-Rangel? amendment but not enough to stop the filibuster so a vote could be taken. And you have the nerve to suggest that Sheehan could hurt the Democratic party because she's tired of their lame actions and disorganization. Only thing Pelosi has done is remove accountability from the worst, most unpopular, most corrupt presidency in our nation's history because "she" feels it is "a waste of time" to defend the constitution and do what it demands we do in this situation.
Conyers responds to the WH's refusal to comply with the subpoenas on what he would do to get them to comply by saying "I'm not going to impeach anybody".
And you think Sheehans activities or challenges might threaten the Democratic party?
These people have done little to nothing about Iraq though they've had the chance to.
They have done nothing to reign in the power abuses of the WH.
They have done little to prevent the politization of the Federal agencies and cabinets.
They have not tried to stop republican obstructionism in the Senate.
The Democratic party needs to be shaken up because right now they are operating as only the lesser of two evils and that is not support. They have stopped listening to the public. Right now we need 400 Cindy Sheehans and 0 Nancy Pelosis.

Pelosi's refusal to impeach or get behind it far surpasses any of her so called accomplishments. Sheehan is not going to run for speaker of the house just Pelosi's seat. Yes she would be a novice but that often outshines complacency.
There was no need for Pelosi to make her famous statement...she wasn't even asked about it. She immediately told the WH we are not going to waste our time holding you accountable. Now does that sound like a mature leadership statement to make as you come into office. Especially since it just came from out of the blue and stunned most of us who voted Dems into power to do 2 things, end the war and stop government corruption or bring back oversight and accountability to government. Immediately Pelosi removes one of those issues from the table. How smart was that? Maybe after Sheehan has been in office awhile she too will get voted speaker of the house but now she is just going after a House Representative seat. I don't know of any special qualifications Pelosi had to get to be Speaker. She probably was just a "safe" choice. But what she did by her statement was not very tactful. There was no wisdom in her statement and it would have been wiser to have just kept her mouth shut rather than let Bush know she would not hold him accountable giving him encouragement to abuse his powers. Changes have occurred that should cause Pelosi to reconsider but she ignores them. Maybe she possess organizational skills but how would you know? She has not accomplished anything she wanted to yet.
So before you belittle Sheehan and call it "bait and switch" consider that the real wisdom here is knowing that impeachment will tie Bush's hands and maybe prevent him from attacking Iran. Impeachment would do more for stopping the occupation in Iraq than anything Pelosi has attempted yet. It would help prevent the escalation Bush is planning...there is no downside to impeachment with the rampant corruption and abuse of power to the point of ignoring the rule of law. Pelosi and others just ignore this wisdom because it's too inconvenient, would interfere with "policy-making" (which is being obstructed in the senate) and is a waste of time because we might not win(forget doing it for the principles we stand for like the constitution).
The deer in the headlights will be those who wished they would have impeached because it might have prevented the disaster of attacking Iran, before our rights to impeach were removed. Maybe Sheehan doesn't want to chance that while Pelosi just says Bush doesn't have permission to attack Iran.

read up on what Cindy went through in the ditches in Crawford.
And just maybe the only way she thinks this war will end is through impeachment so we can get another, saner admin in there.
Cindy is emotionally dissatisfied with Dems? How could you possibly know that? Maybe she's just plain disgusted at their spinelessness. I'm still hoping for something positive to happen between now and September, but recent history has taught us all lessons should we choose to hear them.

uh.... haven't you heard what's she's said?

Also, I think the meeting she's talking about was when she met him at the white house not at Crawford. I don't quite understand the OP's point on that either but in general her points are well taken.

Take a look at some of the threads. The party of slavery. Starting every war in the 20th century. Etc. These are attacks on the entire party, not just specific people within it. It is clear that she is emotionally dissatisfied with the party and the wide-sweeping "j'accuse" sounds like someone who is enraged with the Democrats.

I had forgotten the date of the quote. This will be corrected in the OP.

"And Sheehan's critics like to point out that after Sheehan met Bush in June 2004, she said, "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.""

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/30/MNGHPQ3PSH1.DTL&hw=sheehan&sn=001&sc=1000

I think his avoidance and smartassness is what started this whole thing.

or at least, on the early stages of Alzheimer's ... I remember "Uh, who are we honoring today?"

(See op)

You put it so perfectly that I can't add anything. :)

I am grateful for Cindy's tireless energy and her dedication, but it is time to let the people who can turn the wheels turn them in whatever way they know how. I'm as impatient for this war to end as anyone on this board, but I know that sometimes the mills of Congress grind exceedingly slowly. :(

that the Iraq War is a symptom of a dysfunctional government. Heads MUST Roll ... and Bush deserves to go First; as a reminder to future ignorant, incompetent, cowardly, Wanna Bees.

And we have had that dysfunctional government since the end of WWII at very least. Monumental change of a long-lived dysfunction is not a matter of rolling one head or two. It would involve a revolutionary change of the power structure, and these kinds of things rarely occur quickly unless you are willing to create massive instability and/or bloodshed. Don't get me wrong: there might come a point when some would be willing to do this, but most people have homes, mortgages, children, etc. and stability is important thing.

So, you make repairs when you can, especially when you don't have the inside track or the overwhelming political force to push major changes.

The current goal is to end this illegal and immoral war. We have to work with the government as it currently exists to get the killing (at least in Iraq) to stop. Once the Dems have better numbers and better leverage, they can work to shift certain processes, power centers, etc. and this will take time.

when the status quo is militarism and empire.

"We have to work with the government as it currently exists to get the killing (at least in Iraq) to stop"

It's slow, it's painful, and it takes a toll on the people who act as change agents. They themselves may never be rewarded for what they have done - they can even lose their jobs - and the change may be so minor as not to be noticed by the general public, even when the one little change radiates out and causes many other changes that do effect the public. But once the change is in place, it becomes set.

I do not mean to be vague and obscure here. I am thinking of someone in particular whom I know involved in government. Change is a wickedly unpredictable process, but knowing what you want and holding steadfast while others get bored, frustrated, lose interest, get private sector jobs, etc. can get the change done.

No changes are done by fiat unless you the President, and then only in certain areas. Everyone else has to play the game and it is endlessly frustrating.

The fascist are in power and life change will be forced on us economically and we have little time or means left us to turn it around before we lose our mortgages, marriages, and children. We are beyond "repair" we need a total reconstruction. Government is very functional in partnering with corporations and this is the definition of....that's right. All reform must come from removing the influence of corporations on elections and government. Privatization must be removed from government functions as it all goes toward building corporate power. No elected government person can be allowed to receive any money except from public taxes to get elected. etc etc. I'm tired of writing but you will figure it out. Government by, of and for the people should be the only entity large enough to handle corporations and the "commons".
Corporate greed has tried to make money off every government function which usually destroys or corrupts that function... eventually. Thats the dysfunction of government, but it's also the functioning of corporations.

It is very dangerous for the US to leave the Bush infrastructure in place just because he weilded the power to do it for so long. If Bush is found worthy of impeachment, then he will be indicted as a criminal and part of a criminal conspiracy (the neo-cons). His personal power and those that possess power that Bush delegated would suddenly be unable to exert their influence under suspicion of furthering an osensibly criminal regime. His Supreme Court Justices will have to duck for cover if they want to keep their robes, because a judge who was appointed by a criminal regime cannot be seen as anything but serving that criminal regime.

The case has to be done correctly, of course...and it must bring most Americans on-board. However, the truth is definitly on our side because Bush is a criminal mother fucker through and through that has built a rap sheet a mile long already, half of which he admits to.

And the American People want it very badly. In my opinion, by 2009 we will find ourselves unable to extracate Bushism in the least because his infrastructure will be legitimzed poltically.

I do not believe a post-hoc conviction of Bush the citizen in 2009+ will generate the impetus for extricaing his neo-con infrastructure. It is that legacy that is the most dangerous to Americans.

And the primary force of an impeachment would be to delegitimize the neocon power structure. However, I think is already happening in many quarters. Even without impeachment, and with a Democratic win across both houses and in the presidency, many neocon flaws could be undone and certainly political appointees would be removed. However, the neocons would not be marked with the stigma of criminality, just the weak negative of a failed administration, and this might create some limits as to how far the Dems could go in reorganizing government. So impeachment is the stronger offense against the evils of the neocon power structure.

The problem with impeachment is that the neocons abused the process in the last 2 years of Clinton's term and they have tainted the process itself with the poison of "political payback." The Founding Fathers did not intend the impeachment process to be a witch hunt and based on lies about one's personal sex life. (Ben Franklin, the man of many sexual exploits, was a key mover and shaker in the Constitution's creation.) They intended it for crimes against the STATE. And clearly, we have those in this administration.

On my tin foil hat days, I believe that the neocons set up the Clinton impeachment (or "sting" is probably a better word) to taint the process of impeachment itself so that the American people would be unwilling to use it even when the neocon administration committed dastardly crimes against the state. Sort of an innoculation process.

In any event, impeachment has become something to be approached very gingerly if at all. The key to its use, I believe, is a public outcry and strong enough poll numbers emphatic about impeachment. This way, the Dems could demonstrate that they are justified in using the impeachment process because the people, en masse, have asked for it. This kind of overwhelming support would prevent an impeachment of Bush/Cheney from looking like a political hit.

Interestingly, going after Cheney might be better in this regard. As VP, he will not be seen as big a target as the president, and the public might be able to better accept that.

I am a notoriously bad typist, and I appreciate you being able to read some of my screed, as well.

I agree with you in all respects save one. I do believe that Americans will be able to separate the impeachment of Bill Clinton from the impeachment of Bush. I believe that the politicians who were on the Hill at the time are the ones who feel they have to be ginger because they have PTSD from the last time...and have a legitimate reason to fear Bush that is more personal than political. But I know from my many jaunts around the water-cooler in a purple state and a red state that no one will have a fit if impeachment went underway except the fervent Bushbots. The rest are ready to listen. Recent polling of 50%+ behind impeachment by Rasmussen yesterday shows that the American people are ready for the evidence to come forth and get rid of this bastard.

I freely admit that I am desperate to see the neo-con political infrastructure abolished from US politics. I surmise with fair confidence after observing these people and their actions that they have plenty of nasty surprises in store for us in the future by legislative means or by means of their appointees and "retooled" agencies...their vehicle is the legitimacy Bush gave them by making them part of the government.

We must destroy that legitamacy now, while it is affecting the American people directly and public sentiment is trending strongly towards impeachment with a statistical majority just reached as we speak. We must begin proceedings using the "I"-word and make people take sides (the I-word tends to do that). We have a communication infrastructure with the internet (which does have an effect on the body politic), the ex-politicans and experts, and musicians. The media can no longer keep it together with their cmoke and mirrors. We would win, at least in the public sphere, and then we have the leverage to get votes from the many entrenched non-neocon Republican Senators and get that conviction.

There are many ways this could fail, but I do believe that the possibility is significant enough to try (I'd give conviction 2-1 odds against due to Republican partisanship, which can be used against them in the future). The only way I know to fail is to not try, and the future consequences as I see it are disastrous.

That's how I see this. But I'm only one DUer who speak for himself and his populist leanings. Thanks for reading if you made it this far.

Belated welcome to DU, Elspeth, and please do not sacrifice yourself to a dragon because your dad was a cheater. :) (movie reference)

I particularly liked that you had goals for impeachment other than seeing it as ending the war. What we are going to need in government is a real cleaning of the Augean stables, and it is going to take some real cleverness to find out how to do that. Perhaps impeachment is the way to that, perhaps not, and I am not in a position to know how it would play out in Washington. I am fairly sure that the cable and right wing media would turn the entire process on the Democrats and it would remain to be seen if the non-stop neocon propaganda would change the opinions of a critical mass of American people in mid-impeachment. I know you suggested that the people realize that the M$M is so much smoke and mirrors, but I live in San Diego where I hear people parrot the right wing media constantly. Roger Hedgecock, our local neocon bullhorn, is big favorite. (We still have Mike Malloy on at night, thank God. :) ) I have heard people say that they believe the entire Middle East should be completely carpet bombed, and these are people who call themselves Christians. I also call myself Christian but have been opposed to this illegal and immoral war since before it was launched.

I do agree that the neoconservative movement has to be shown for the morally bankrupt entity it is. I am just not sure that impeachment is the right move. I think that Reid and Pelosi should be able to work that out with Congress (and our letters of input) without being threatened with a part fracture.

But I have very much enjoyed reading your comments and I will think about them. And thank you for the welcome. It was very nice. (And for the movie reference. :) )

E.

an excellent reference.

I like your style. You are concerned chiefly about the best course of action for the country and employ reason in your argument as well as in the processing of information. Even though we disagree on this issue at this time, I deeply respect you from this exchange. It is through this sort of conversation that a unified course of action for our entire political coalition can be forged. Thank you once again.

Thank you. And I think if we respected each other more, despite our differences, we could research better solutions.

Peace.

E.

Even though it will be one way since I'm not as well informed or articulate and insightful as you two?

:)

Zodiak, I just noticed you last week after reading a thoughtful and insightful post and you said in it that you didn't post much here. Glad to keep noticing your posts since then as I always enjoy them.

Elspeth, glad to see more of the same from you.

I have backed off of my strong feelings of impeaching Bush mostly because I'm afraid of what would happen if he were actually removed from office. Sure the votes for indictment aren't there now, but will they be after the public hears the impeachment evidence? Will they pressure their senators to vote for indictment? Perhaps. Then what? Cheney moves up? Can't have that. So we impeach Cheney first and a new VP appointment has to be confirmed. Another neocon won't make the cut by then, or at least they had better not. If Dems confirmed yet another crony I really would just give up. So they confirm a reasonable Republican as VP. Do the Republicans have time to get that person ready to run for president as an incumbent? I believe that if they thought that was their last chance to keep holding on to the WH that they would all get behind that person.

I'm worried that the Repubs get a new person into the WH they could then say that they cleaned it all up and everything's fine now. But I also worry that if we don't do the right thing and hold this administration accountable for their crimes that it will continue and repeat. And as Zodiak said, it would leave us unable to really clean out the government and rid them of all this neocon/religious right nonsense.

Okay

And there is precious little of good faith strategizing that I see these days.

As Elpeth said to me, I am sympathetic to your argument regarding "We win, what then?". To be honest, I have not spent any time thinking of what to do to ensure that your nightmare scenario is not possible. As a quick answer, I would dfinitely say indict them both with impeachment before a vote is taken in the Senate on either of them. In this manner, as an indicted person, it is far easier to remove the levers of power from them when it comes to replacing themselves until the results of both trials comes out.

I will think more on this, but I am certain that concurrency of the charges is paramount to the strategy.

You make a good point indeed.

impeachment and conviction is successful. Please see my post just above, #68 I believe...

A big shovel and you scoop up ALL the shit and straw and throw it ALL out. Throw it ALL out. Start over with fresh straw.

You do not SAVE any straw that might be good, just because it does not have any shit on it.

You throw it all out.

Fresh Straw.

The problem with all these f'ing Augean Stable analogies is that the current shit covered straw pieces are trying to figure out a way to pick out the good pieces of Straw that are left in the stable and shake off enough of the shit covering themselves to get a PASS and stay in the stable.

This is just the opinion of someone who actually has cleaned stables.

Peace.

ascend to the throne when Bush is gone. I'd rather get rid of dickless before chimpy.

House resolution 333 introduces articles of impeachment of Dick Cheney. Introduced by Dennis Kucinich...Has 14 sponsors so far

I agree with pretty much all you've said. Very well articulated. Thanks for writing it.

:)

Fantastic essay!

I'd like to add one thing. Not only are the Democrats working on ending the war, there is an effort to hold the White House in criminal contempt. Contempt would be a big step toward impeachment and it won't backfire. Asking for contempt is not an unreasonable request like instant impeachment. Contempt would punish the Bush cabal, criminally, and make it far more likely that Bush will respond to subpoenas and help us prove crimes against him.

If any of these impeachment fans care about upholding the constitution and all the other slogans, they'd all be working on lobbying for contempt charges.

It's a better option than impeachment, which has been tainted by the 98/99 neocon impeachment of Clinton. The neocons made impeachment synonymous with a political vendetta, and this is no doubt how most of the general public would see any impeachment of Bush. (Though maybe not of Cheney, I'm not sure.)

And toward some third party that will be, undoubtedly, funded and abetted by the RNC. With elections as close as they have been, and voting fraud at every level of the process, we can't afford to lose the anti-war left.

but I can't see the RNC funding any party made up of anti-war activists.

They will be happy to support the anti-war candidate, like they supported Nader, to neutralize the Democratic threat, which is the only real threat out there. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

and many are not too picky about the source, provided they don't get caught. This is not true of all people, but remember that many Green candidates received backing from Republican quarters.

for Senate in Pennsylvania.

It kind of makes you wonder about Nader.

Are leaving the party as that the party has left us.

Show me a Democrat who is progressive and I'll go the mile.

As I've pointed out before there are a number of them: Boxer, Waters, Woolsey, Kucinich.

Now if I should win the lottery it may not be as important - I won't care as much about Health Insurance, the war in Iraq, the open warfare on consumers. Continually spending a trillion here a half a trillion there on a war we have no intention of winning. I'll have my distractions and I won't care as much.

But I look at history - and I remember how many the waves the Repugs made after Clinton's 1992 WH victory - the Dems had Congress as well

Yet the Repugs continually gave the Democratic leadership hell. They were not namby pamby.

They didn't cave. Even though they had no majority.

Cannot say that of the Democrats.

because that is your realistic choice right now. A Democrat, a Republican, or my some miracle a centrist Independant is about the best you can hope for.

Reality is what we on the earth make of it. All of us.

Clinton could wake up tomorrow and re-discover her progressive roots.

Barrack could start to mean the things that he says.

Michael Moore could decide to fund Kucinich's run for the WH with fifty million dollars and help him get an organization that will deliver.

There are even several different "me's" involved with this.

There is Carol the activist - who knows from the history of the progressive movement that every humanist change over the last one hundred fifty years has come from the people. That who someone voted for pales in comparison with street action.

When I think of meaningful change I reflect on the people who were willing to show up the day of the Pullman Strikes in the streets of Chicago.
And The suffragists of the teens and twenties who are the reason that we women can now not only vote but run for office.

Also those who refused to move to the back of the bus. Who took the right of a people to vote to mean the right of all colors of people to vote in the City of Selma Ala.

To the campus radicals who shut the schools down in the late sixties.

And now the issues are huge: whether we get out of Iraq; whether we have national single payer universal health. Whether we contuinue to outsource good paying jobs.
Whether our elections are meaningful - or hackable and hacked.
Whether we continue to allow the FDA and other agencies to pander to lobbyists. (This one is big because if we continue down the path of GMO foods we might be facing a food-created pandemic or out and out famine.



The meaningful changes in our society have come about because of activism.

This was the last 2 years of a 40-year Democratic rule of the House. There were internal struggles going on as well as struggles against the new right that was feeling its power after 12 years in the presidency. This was also the time the new right media had become a constant fixture in peoples' lives.


The Congressional majority plus a Democratic president in 92 should have been a godsend, but it may have been that after 12 Reagan/Bush years, the Democrats had gotten out of practice in dealing with a president from their own party. They were antagonistic when they shouldn't have been and Clinton seemed to have had a hard time understanding that he had to work with Congress and not make pronouncements without consulting Senior Reps and Senators from his party. It seemed to me at the time that the power struggle between the old-timers in Congress and Clinton the newcomer (and DLC at that) weakened the entire party at a time when right wing radio had achieved a critical mass and was becoming a tremendous force.

is not enough"

Do you see the war as "ending" recently, or in the near future?

Perhaps, a better way of phrasing this would have been to have said: "The goal of ending the war is not enough." But then I think you might have known that.

that you might have meant what you wrote. It's possible that I think you meant something else. But I thought it best to question what you actually said, because I find it curious that anyone would say that the war is coming to an end.

The use of the gerund, however, may have created some ambiguity. And because that was made clear by your post, I clarified the phrase. I did hope that the clarification would be enough for a simple "Thank you" and not snark.


On edit: I may be judging you too harshly here, and if I am, I apologize for having misunderstood your intent.

if you think the "goal of ending the war" was something being actively worked towards now.

In which of your posts do you ask this question?









Thank you.

I did you the kindness of clarifying my statement for you. Perhaps you would do the same kindness for me.

Great post, thanks!

I generally avoid all Cindy threads only because I could not have said the same thing as succinctly.
Thanks for articulating my thoughts on this matter.

MZr7

It's hard to keep emotions under control, especially when the person in question is "family" so to speak.

Impeachment is a political act. Bush has become an unpopular president because of the war. Just as Nixon had become because of Vietnam. If the war in Iraq were going swimmingly with grateful Iraqis flinging flowers at the troops Gonzales, Libby, Plame, and all the rest, would be minor irritations to the public. Just as Watergate would have been a political "dirty trick" with few consequences.

As everyone should know by now, politics is a dirty business, and politicians play dirty. What Cindy is doing is trying to prod the politicians into doing what they're good at. Impeach a highly unpopular president because he's vulnerable - and thus end the catastrophe in Iraq.

Nixon's fall was Watergate, not Vietnam.

Nixon's ratings was near the 70's until the scandal took momentum in the spring of '73. By May, it was down to the 40's, and by September, it was in the 30's and still trending downward.

Read up: http://drewthaler.blogspot.com/2005/04/nixon-approval-ratings.html

Within weeks of articles of impeachment having been drawn up.

The Senate hearings had been going on for over a year by the time Nixon finally resigned. The fall of Saigon happened almost two years after the Senate hearings began.

And Ford, his VP (and a member of the Warren Commission) took over, presiding over the fall of Saigon in 1975. I don't know enough about the Vietnam war to know if the fall of Saigon was a foregone conclusion regardless of Nixon's status, or if his tarnished reputation and his resignation were catalysts for the end of the war.

End this occupation, hold Bush accountable. False premise.

Impeachment may not lead to the end of the war. And the process of ending the war may not lead to impeachment.


Some see it as a single goal but many of us do not. One of the problems with impeachment is "Impeach whom?" Bush? Cheney moves up and is still running the war. Impeach Cheney? Bush chooses another war supporter. Both would have to be impeached if impeachment is to mean the end of the war. And that is assuming that corporations with a stake in the war don't put massive pressure on the Republican replacments for Bush and Cheney to continue the war.

that there has been any inconsistency, let alone fraud for gawd's sake, on *Cindy's* part.

And it's inaccurate to say both would need to be impeached to end the war as there are innumerable scenarios that could end the war.

they are not necessarily inextricably connected. This means that in separating the two, I am not operating from a "false premise". That was your criticism of me and I responded to it. That was all.

As far the different scenarios, I would be interested to hear how an impeachment might bring an immediate end to the war. I know that the Vietnam example is around--Nixon forced to resign in 74 and the fall of Saigon in 75. I wonder what would have happened with an impeachment, which would probably have gone into 75.

a "bait and switch" when from the outset she had two goals: end the war and hold Bush accountable.

That's a very serious charge.

It's always good to get clarification. Sometimes it's easy to misunderstand. I thought you meant that viewing impeachment and ending the war as separate goals was a false premise.

In regard to bait and switch:

I think it is deceptive on Cindy's part to give the Democratic leadership the message "end the war" and then, once they are in office trying to do just that, change her message to "Impeach right now" and threaten Pelosi's seat if they don't accede to these new demands right away.

that felon accountable.

She was fronting the anti-war movement and her message was "Stop the War." This new threat to a Democrat who won't impeach right away could not have been predicted by her previous political message.

as I have posted ad nauseum on this thread, was always one of Cindy's goals. You are using hyperbole -- a tactic for which Cindy has been roundly criticized on this board.

And, the impeachment movement was around for years before Cindy camped in that ditch in Crawford. So, it isn't a matter of prediction but of joining forces to bring about her stated goal, to hold Junior accountable. Ramsey Clark drew up articles of impeachment years ago. I tried searching for a date and found 2003 but, I couldn't swear on a stack of phonebooks that that is accurate.

http://www.redrat.net/BUSH_WAR/clark.htm

On edit: Cindy set up Camp Casey in 2005.

I think Cindy Sheehan and others are about to set us up for another defeat. I was listening to Ed Schultz today, who I rarely listen to, and I swear there was a RW plant arguing against Pelosi and Reid. I can't prove it but I know that it sounded just too damn rehearsed to be real. I'm reeling with anger right now because I think we might lose the next one with the RW playing up our divisions.

The only thing that could destroy a Democratic win in 2008 is the Democratic circular firing squad, and the Republicans know that.

Thank you.

So many people are ready to damn Reid as an appeaser, but listen to what a true hero on the Iraq debate has to say about him:

http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/070629_Feingold.mp3

NGU.

I like Feingold too.

We did not pick a fight with her. She came out swinging.

I think the OP is spot on! Congress is behind the scenes working on ending the war.

Impeachment, for some, has become a single-issue mantra very similar to how the radical religious right made abortion the single issue mantra.

Sad thing though, instead of hurting the Reps, the more likely result will be hurting the Dems, when the idealistic, all-or-nothing, my-way-or-the-highway, you're-either-for-us-or-against-us, instant-gratification-or-else impeachment crowd bolts the party like Cindy has done.

Sometimes I think Democrats are masochistic by nature. They would rather enjoy protesting the indignities of being the minority party instead of actually winning. So even when we have as great an opportunity as we face in 08 to not only win the Presidency but a mandate in Congress to go with it as we have had in decades....we somehow will find a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

The Republicans gotta love it! We are feeding on ourselves instead of focussing on winning.

What does it take for some of us to learn that we gotta think smart? You would think that Nader causing Bush to be able to even get close to Gore in Florida might have made even the most masochistic among us realize that 8 more years of Republican rule is unthinkable.

Run, Cindy, Run. Far. Very far away.

Snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. That is so apt.

for any and every development that happens, like she somehow did it singlehandedly.

Like you said, they don't see the big picture.

A little about myself: Patience is not my strong suit!

Nor is "politics".

But I have considered every word here with the same respect you have accorded your readers and Ms. Sheehan.

Hopefully, others will take a cue from this. The condescension and scorn routinely heaped upon those "ignorant of political process" is unhelpful. There may be truth to it, but people concerned enough to be on this board are not idiots, nor deserving of such disrespect.

We are in a crisis of legitimacy that transcends the usual politic processes - that is the perception of many, including Ms. Sheehan, whose perspective has evolved in this direction. While I agree that Cindy is no politician, and that her avowed congressional run is a questionable tactic, I can't say that I'm in accord with the characterization of Cindy's impeachment demand as an "unfair bait-and-switch tactic".

You shine the best possible light on Congressional Democrats, and within that paradigm (what I think of as "the pretend world"), you may be right. I am not privy to their real thoughts and intentions, nor the "inner workings" of congress. I am just supposed to take people's word for it. Yours, I give respectful consideration, because you have not talked down to me.

I think that bandying about snarky quips doesn't help understanding. I also understand why people distrust the political process in Washington.

Yet, I do know that there are special people in politics who can get through the thicket and keep the crucial parts of things intact. The political process is terribly snaggled and political gamesmanship often superceded the merits of an actual issue or the legislation at hand. But some people know how to hold on and not let the process destroy them. I know someone like this. Maybe that is why I haven't lost hope.

Hey sorry your son got his brains blown out, these things take time. Hey, sorry we accidental blew up your wife and 5 year old child, but these things take time. Hey sorry your kid came home with no legs.. these things take time.


A poster above me seems to think that Cindy's supporters think she walks on water and she is the one getting everything done. Well speaking for myself, what I think is she is acting with a sense of urgency that no one else is, and she's doing it because she keeps her eye on the BIG PICTURE, the one the anti-Cindy people seem to love to talk about but are blind to. The big picture may be filled with ideas, facts, reason, politics and most of all TIME, the "real" big picture is that the people on the frontlines have NO MORE FUCKING TIME!

I would like to wake up and have this war be over too.

I am not trying to belittle anyone's pain, but I also think it is unfair to expect a new, slim, Democratic majority to change things in 6 months, especially knowing the culture of Washington. I wish they acted more quickly, but Pelosi is working against Republican party knee-jerk discipline, and she needs the Republicans, at least some of them, to be on board.

I know that Cindy feels the urgency and is transmitting that. But by threatening Pelosi, she has not guaranteed any change in Congressional strategy and she is upsetting many of us who desperately want a Democratic win in 2008 for many reasons.

on every news channel.

...and a crucial dividing line between the "pretend world" and the real world.

Thank you.

Sad but true.

Their options are up

Some three weeks ago, I settled on watching the last few minutes of Glen Beck. (Normally have him on "ignore")

He has a nephew, a cousin? anyway a family member over in Iraq.

The young man was saying, "Please send food - our meals are being seriously rationed."

Beck said that that is changing his thinking more than anything else - that one conversation.

I will never forget the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up in the bitter cold trying to save the lives of people like Ms. Sheehan's son. We were not treated with respect and our presence was ignored.

I didn't feel then, and I don't feel now that Ms. Sheehan carries any more credibility then the many tens of thousands of people who either died, were wounded, or lost people they dearly loved.

It is her perogative of course to run for political office - of course - just as it was Ralph Nader's perogative to do so.

Ralph Nader told us that "Bush was the same as Gore," of course, and that the most important issue facing humanity was NAFTA. His endless propaganda against the Democrats - played up to the hilt by CNN - almost certainly worked to create the environment that killed Ms. Sheehan's son.

When the election was over in 2000, I was overseas and the thing covered by CNN minute to minute were the incredibly self serving statements of the freak who got the least votes for President. CNN covered him like flies on shit. It was undoubtedly Mr. Nader's proudest moment, the precise moment that he set in motion a tragedy from which neither this country nor Iraq will ever fully heal.

For about three years after, CNN put Ralph Nader all the time, identifying him as a "consumer activist" rather than as a failed politician with a weak agenda and an nonexistent sense of reality.

The last time the target was Al Gore, and now it's Nancy Pelosi.

CNN and Fox et al, I predict, are suddenly going to be paying lots of postive attention to Ms. Sheehan, who seems to think that this war was dreamed up and executed by the Democrats.

Ms. Pelosi has very real limits on her power, the biggest limit being her ability to herd cats. I may not agree with everything Ms. Pelosi says or does, but she is my speaker and in any case, I would like to remind everyone here about the six years of Dennis Hassert. Are our attention spans really that short that we thought Ms. Pelosi could stop the ravages of six years of one party rule in six minutes because Cindy Sheehan is in a snit?

I don't follow Ms. Sheehan's pronouncements on this and that to be frank, but I did see all of the anguish associated with her "I'm going to quit because people aren't nice to me..." stuff. I've seen this type of behavior played out thousands of times with bloggers (including myself) and then they slink back to see if anyone is missing them. It's old frankly.

I don't need Ms. Sheehan to tell me what to think, and I don't need her approval to be a Democrat, something I am consistently proud of being, all our flaws and short comings fully acknowledged.

If Ms. Sheehan thinks she is going to get elected to a Congressional seat and impeach Bush and stop the war, she simply has zero insight into history, politics, etc, etc etc.

Sheehan will be a powerless back bencher at best, at worst, a candidate who helped a Republican take the seat of the Speaker of the House, a face among 435 other congresspersons who will know her primarily for having sought blind revenge against someone who did almost nothing to harm her.

I want Bush and Cheney gone and have always wanted them gone, but the campaign of Ms. Sheehan will do nothing to accomplish that since Ms. Sheehan can only take power when Mr. Bush is leaving office. Indeed, I did my best to keep Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney out of office and I did so by being a good Democrat in 2000. We failed in 2000, but it not because of those who sat back and whined about our lack of purity. In fact the purity whiners worked against us in our efforts.

I personally think that she is trying to be a demagogue, just as Mr. Nader was trying - and succeeded at being a Demagogue. I am sorry she lost a son. I cannot imagine a similar anguish. But it suddenly doesn't make her wise or practical or goddess-like.

Frankly I am heartily sick of Gods and Goddesses.

It is sad on some level - and I still love Mr. Gore - and ironic too, that the latest "God" is Al Gore. I 100% percent guarantee that if Mr. Gore is elected in 2008 many of the same people who are now engaged in worship will be having snits about his lack of perfection and their self serving "disappointment."

I was thrilled when Ms. Pelosi came to power. I am still thrilled because I, like Ms. Pelosi, am no God but merely a human being.

The part that struck me most was:

"It is sad on some level - and I still love Mr. Gore - and ironic too, that the latest "God" is Al Gore. I 100% percent guarantee that if Mr. Gore is elected in 2008 many of the same people who are now engaged in worship will be having snits about his lack of perfection and their self serving "disappointment.""

This is so prescient.

I remember Nader and his "No difference between Bush and Gore". Would that the Nader voters could have seen the current Supreme Court back in 2000.

One of the best, if not THE best, on DU that I've ever read. Amazing insight and words.

I have read many outstanding posts on DU.

It seems to me if we alienate the few Repugs who can help bring our troops home, ending the war isn't a go?

I hadn't thought of that, but if we need Republican support to end the war, then impeachment will cause a hardening along party lines and certainly end cooperation.

Bush/Cheney** has said that we won't leave Iraq while it's in office. So I wonder if we CAN end the war without IMPEACHMENT...

NGU.

Hmmmm. If that's the case, we better get on it! :hi:

Even if Sheehan were to run, she could draw 30% and still lose in a landslide. Nancy Pelosi has received 80+% of the vote in the last three elections (79.6% in 2002, if we're being picky). So what are we worried about? Let her make her futile, counterproductive run for congress.

And most importantly to me, it is extremely unlikely that Cindy's candidacy would throw the race to someone else other than Nancy or herself. But I have no doubt The Party of Slavery will manage to hold onto CA-08 against Cindy's challenge.

..if someone points out to her that she has the best chance to make her point by doing so.

Or, she may not even need to run against Pelosi, should someone like Matt Gonzalez decide to take Pelosi on in the primary.

Still, none of these things -- including the absence of Pelosi in the next congress -- are anything to worry about. It's just what happens in a democracy.

--

Considering that she has reported leaving the Democratic party due to a lost faith in it's effectiveness, it would be rather hypocritical for her to run in the primary. I just can't fathom the people of San Francisco booting the first female Speaker of the House out of congress in favor of an irrational, impatient nut like Cindy Sheehan. Also, Matt Gonzales was a losing candidate for the Mayorship, on the <b>Green Party</b> ticket. It would go against that old Green Party spiel that both parties are the same if he were to enter the primary. His mere involvement in that party could crush his chances.

I couldn't be less concerned. Sheehan may finish second in the race with 20%, which would still 50% behind the 70% that Pelosi would take.

And the crap about professional politicians compels me to vault my lunch in your general direction. If you would like to see what it takes to be a great politician, look at Lynn Woolsey, don't look to the Man.

This reads like a list of Karl Rove talking points -- 100% devoid of reality.

Maybe this is why threads on Cindy Sheehan's actions turn into such flame fests. Instead of logically arguing about the points themselves in a civilized manner (which most people on this thread have been trying to do), your post just throws out accusations without any backing and insults DUers personally. Sadly, it seems that Rupert Murdoch has brought all sides of the political debate down to a junior high level.

that the professional politicians can do a better job than the people.

For which "accusations" would you like backing? The one where Nancy Pelosi promised no more blank checks and then wrote a blank check the first chance she got? That bait an switch thing?

By the way: What was Sheehan's bait and switch again?

As to which accusation you made, let's start with the "No more blank checks." From what you are saying, you believe that "blank check" equals any and all war funding, even that funding to keep the troops in food, water and weaponry in a war zone. Is that characterization correct?

Nobody has ever, ever, ever, suggested withholding funds for those kinds of things. Well, except the the compulsive liars who carry the Puke talking points. But I understand why you had to make up such outrageous nonsense. Thanks for clarifying.

The implications of that line in the OP already set a junior high tone of accusations without any backing. At least you didn't come straight out and say "she has emotional problems" like the RW does, but it kind of reminds me of my garden when I don't have quite enough mulch so I sort of sprinkle it lightly over the dirt, thinking as long as nobody can directly see what's under there, it's covered up well enough.

Presumptions about her "emotional needs" certainly don't fall under the heading of arguing logical points.

These indicate a deep level of emotion and the need to vent this emotion. That was why the phrase was in there.

that many others have after many, many years of trying to end the madness: as long as Bush & Co. are in office, the war will not end. :shrug:

As a San Franciscan, I am someone who will be personally effected by a run by Cindy Sheehan. I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever with her running in my county as an Independent against Nancy Pelosi. If Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party cannot come up with a winning argument that they can effectively articulate to San Francisco voters, they do not deserve to win. It's that simple.

As a voter, I never fear a competition of ideas, and I fully appreciate outsiders who act as a "burr on the butt" of the status quo. It is for this reason I love the fact that Kuccinich and Gravel are in the presidential race -- they have the freedom to say some hard truths that MUST be heard, especially by the other Democratic candidates. If their presence causes a change in the dialog and a shift towards what is right by the others, I am all for it.

I look forward to what Cindy has to say.

This war/occupation has been immoral and illegal from the get go and needed to be stopped before it started. The problem is that giving into frustration can result in actions that exacerbate the problem, not help it. That is how I see her current action. She is punishing the wrong people in my opinion. It's like beating your wife because you can't punch your boss. She is projecting her anger and frustration onto the very people who are trying, against all political odds, to help her cause.

No one seems to know. I asked a staunch defender of hers that and they had no answer.

because there is more to being a congressional politician than just having one topic on her platform.

Also, I'd like to know how she plans on dealing with those Dems she's going to alienate and how she thinks she will get anything through when she's struck at the head of Dem leadership in the house. She would do better going up against a thug candidate in another district rather than forcing a split in the Dem vote in Pelosi's district, which could assure a thug winning her spot.

vs. in October of '04?

I voted Dem for 2 reasons, anti-war and for John Conyers to begin the hearings into the crimes of the bush admin. --- the first steps toward impeachment.

Pelosi and the rest of the Dem "leadership" blocked Conyers.

That's a bigger crime than continuing to support the war.

I was fooled too, I assumed that Conyers would get the biggest and best hearing room in the House within which to begin the investigation into bush/cheney's crimes. I EVEN GOT CABLE TV SO I COULD WATCH THEM ON CSPAN!!!

When he wasn't even allowed to begin, I was (and remain) pretty fucking pissed off!

The WAR is SECONDARY to the imperial presidency, the civil rights violations and the destruction of core values of the Constitution that this administration has perpetrated.

The war will end but these crimes against the Constitution unless addressed by the Constitutionally provided remedy, Impeachment, will stand for future pResidents to continue and amplify.

REMEMBER WATERGATE!!!!

:hi: :blush:

that's one vote... :bounce:

that some moderate Republicans becoming more and more pissed off at Shrubbery and the Guy that Can't Shoot Straight.

But I think that somebody does need to talk seriously about impeachment and find a way to move it forward. And I think that impeachment may be the only way to address the war crimes of this administration.

They're talking about breaking ranks, but they vote with Bushie.

being a "problem" is the day I will worry about I don't know CHAVEZ taking over or something. I mean seriously-to quote Orange County Democrat-this country is a fucking joke. The constitution is toilet paper. And what are you worried about? OH YEAH. The Democratic party. That sounds just like the Republicans. PARTY before country.

The only thing the Democrats have EVER and I do mean EVER since 2001 had to worry about is themselves. They have done themselves in, over and over again.

Emotionally dissatisfied? NO she's fucking OUTRAGED-as I am at how WORTHLESS the Democratic party is. Yeah, she's a danger to it, all right. GOD forbid we change the Democratic party. And almost all politicans-yes, the scum of the fucking earth. Be on this site for a few years and if that isn't your opinion of them-then well CHAVEZ is coming for us.

we need squeaky wheels and we need to be able to take a long hard look at ourselves, always, and at any time.

If we start to question the people who are holding up the mirror rather than what we see in the mirror then we're stepping away from measuring ourselves by principle and becoming more like true partisans who measure themselves by risk and strategy only.

If you have to be as cautious and as self-interested as a republican to be successful as a democrat, how different then are you from an actual republican?

That being said, I believe there is a middle path here too. If we find it incumbent on people who have the attention of the media to do for us, then we should also expect at least some kind of nod towards sensibility as well. But we by gosh better be there to call for impeachment ourselves and actually do something about it if we think that the person who is more suited to call for the end of the war should not be splitting focus and effort on impeachment.

Lots of untruths in this thread . . .

First, what seems to bother you is Cindy's supposed "celebrity" --

Second, Pelosi pulled the first betrayal in "taking impeachment off the table."

Liebermann had nothing to do with that decision which simply served to give aid and comfort to Bushco.

And re this quote: "What bothers me about Cindy now is that she has done a bait and switch on the Congressional Democrats. Her campaign in the summer of 2005 and her tireless work through 2006 was about ENDING THE WAR."

Then . . . the Democrats voted to FUND the war --

That was the second betrayal.

AND . . . Cindy Sheehan came to embrace impeachment because of Bush's pardon/commution of Libby's sentence where it made wildly clear that they could not afford to have Libby sitting in jail and thinking about telling the truth.

It seems that event didn't move Pelosi -- ???

The rest of your diatribe is a big alibi for Pelosi's doing nothing --

And according to you Kerry and Murth have "radical notions."

I'd suggest you're another of the right-wing Democrats here -- right?


PS: And what was the need to lie about the meeting between Bush and Cindy?































Edited to remove the following: Maybe it's because when she met Dubya, he was nice to her. (I hear he's actually very persuasive one-on-one.) This meeting was in 2004 and predated her activities and therefore is moot. Thank you to the DUers who pointed this out.

The rest of the argument still stands.

Your post indicates that you do not, but I will answer it the best I can.



Ok, let's see which ones you have found.





This is not a fact from my post. It is your opinion.




How is this an untruth in regard to my post? I never claimed Pelosi didn't take impeachment off the table. What I think you really mean is that, in your opinion, Pelosi's decision was a betrayal. And you are certainly welcome to that opinion. In my opinion, Pelosi made a sound political decision based on the instability of the Senate (thanks to Lieberman) and the general problem of ending the war. Our opinions differ, but the fact is the same.






The OP never claims that Lieberman played a role in taking impeachment off the table, only that he is a factor (among others) which any Democrat in leadership has to consider. I also claimed that Lieberman is playing an obstructionist role in the Senate, which he is.






I see no incorrect facts here. I do see that you believe that voting for any and all war funding is a betrayal of Sheehan and the anti-war movement. I agree with you there that the continued funding of the war betrays those of us who would like to see it end. But Cindy is not arguing that Pelosi should defund the war or face a primary challenge. She is arguing that Pelosi should impeach Bush, which is quite a different thing.





This is interesting, but does not affect the facts in the OP.





Have you ever seen a diatribe? Webster's defines it as "a bitter and abusive speech or writing". The OP is actually quite measured in its words and quite controlled emotionally.





No, according to me Kerry and Murtha's notions were considered radical, hence the "" quotes around both of those words. I am sorry if you did not understand the use of quotes in that context.





This is not about facts in my post but an accusation.




The meeting between Bush and Cindy in 2004 is actual fact, but it predates her anti-war activities. (See below). I was corrected by some Duers and posted that correction on edit. I was very open about both the mistake and the correction.


"Sheehan and other military families met with President George W. Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, Washington, nearly three months after her son's death. In a June 24, 2004 interview with the Vacaville Reporter published soon after the meeting, she stated, "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled. The President has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached." She also stated that President Bush was "... sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis… I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."<4>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan

But it is my opinion that you're obviously bothered by Cindy Sheehan's anti-war "celebrity."

Pelosi's decision had nothing to do with Liebermann --
and I fully understand your supposed reasoning in trying to link the events.

But that decision to take "impeachment off the table" provided aid and comfort for Bush.
Why?

Your profess that you are for "ending the war" --
Is "funding" the war your idea of "ending the war" . . . ?

These were not "sound political decisions" --

Nor is Lieberman quite the "factor" that you are suggesting with Bush at 26%????

Does Lieberman really want to join a party which is going to be defeated in November????


Re Cindy's goals, I see no signs that she is trying to do anything but "end the war."

She is challenging a Democratic majority which claims impotence in minority and majority status.

While, the GOP shows us over and again that they can BLOCK and STOP at any time????



As for the push to move Pelosi into impeachment mode . . . why is that a surprise to you?

Why are you not reacting to that "commutation" link to the LIES that took us to war?

And why are you labeling Kerry and Murtha as "radicals" if you disagree with that assessment?

Did you intend to suggest that they were "radicals" or not -- ????

Whose side are you on?

And re this exchange . . .
defend & protect: I'd suggest you're another of the right-wing Democrats here -- right?
This is not about facts in my post but an accusation.

Yes -- it's an accusation based on the "facts"/opinions/comments in your post.


Your Cindy Bush comments weren't "actual fact" but distortion of what happened at the meeting.
And is part of the history which propelled Cindy Sheehan into her anti-war activities.

PS:
diatribe: "critical dissertation"
as well as "discourse, short ethical treatise or lecture, debate, argument."

For truth's sake, funding is the perogative of the legislative branch as is matters of war and impeachment. 'Nuff said and let's move on to something constructive.

I find your viewpoint quite sad. While all of the politicking that you are cheering on occurs, more and more people are dying in Iraq. Why should we ask Cindy to be quiet about it so that the offensively rich politicians can go about the process of letting themselves down gracefully from the war?

And, that viewpoint only assumes that this politicking is actually happening the way you say it is. Personally, I think that your fantasies about Reid and Pelosi trying to stop the war "in the back rooms" are far from the truth. They seem to represent a delusional faith in the second head of the corporate hydra, that simply because they don't call themselves "republicans" they must be doing something remotely good for the world.

People are dying. Right now--this very minute I post, and the later minute you read, too. I will never be impressed by those who trumpet the viewpoint, "Let's give the politicians more time to work toward a solution." People are dying.