Cindy Sheehan to Hillary: "you say it or you're losing your job"

[welshTerrier2]

the heat is being turned up on the fence-sitting Democrats ... this is just a warning salvo across their bow ... frankly, i hold out no hope Hillary will ever do what is necessary about Iraq ...

but Clark and Kerry, and i say this to their supporters and to their detractors as well, hold out hope that the Democratic Party will eventually get it right on Iraq ... but they damned well better do it soon or they will be more than just "Sheehanized" ...

Democrats need to go beyond saying they were lied to ... they need to go beyond saying bush is mishandling the war ... they need to go beyond calling for diplomacy ... Democrats need to say that bush is pursuing FALSE OBJECTIVES in Iraq ... they need to say he is still lying about HIS OBJECTIVES ... the war is a war of US imperialism designed to benefit bush's big oil buddies ... let's start with that acknowledgment and then we can debate next steps ...

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/politics/19sheehan.html

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, last night brought her campaign to end the war to New York, where she accused Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of not doing enough to challenge the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

Speaking in front of more than 500 supporters in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, Ms. Sheehan, speaking of Senator Clinton, said, "She knows that the war is a lie but she is waiting for the right time to say it."

Then, as the crowd cheered, she issued a challenge to Senator Clinton, saying, "You say it or you are losing your job."

A spokesman for Senator Clinton, while not commenting about Ms. Sheehan's remarks, said that the senator, while voting to give President Bush the authority to go to war, has been very critical of the way he has chosen to use that authority.

[lancdem]

1. Hillary doesn't respond to threats

She has been critical of how the war's been prosecuted, and I'd like to see more of that.

[welshTerrier2]

3. nor does she respond to the majority view on the war !!

her continued support, unrepresentative support, for more occupation is unconscionable and undemocratic ...

[sandnsea]

47. No politician supports immediate withdrawal

Sadly, some pretend they do, but are afraid to put it down on paper and propose immediate withdrawal to Congress. Then they lie to the anti-war protesters and say that they did.

Only 35% of Americans support immediate withdrawal as well.

[okieinpain]

51. I don't support immediate withdrawl. bad idea.

[Vincardog]

147. I do support immediate US withdrawl. The bad idea is to stay there

and keep making the situation worse. NATO the EU and UN are ready to step in as soon as we leave. It is a FALSE choice to say if we leave then they will have Civil war. They already have a civil war. We do not need to be there.

[okieinpain]

174. eu and un are not going to step in if we just pull out. nobody wants

that mess the we've created.

[Vincardog]

175. Do you think there is a message there?

The EU and UN will NOT step in until we pull out. Remember the pottery shop rule.
You break it - Quit grinding the pieces into dust.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[spanone]

165. Just like Vietnam....there is NO GOOD WAY OUT. Bring the boys home.

There is civil war WHILE our soldiers are there. It will continue when we leave because this is what an illegal war does. There are no winners.

[okieinpain]

173. well actually there is, but it would require a potus with a brain

[seafey]

86. I totally agree. nt

[lateo]

116. So true...

She will respond to what ever her DLC masters tell her to respond to.

[TreasonousBastard]

200. Are you sure about that? She works for...

the citizens of New York, and perhaps she knows better than we do just how the residents of Scarsdale, Lake Oneonta, and Watertown feel about Iraq.

Not that they are necessarily right, but they have the votes that count.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. And this is why

I don't think she is electable as Pres...maybe VP this time.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. It's time for everyone, including Hillary

to take a stand and decide which side their really on. The mushy middle doesn't cut it anymore.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. What threat?

It is a warning that a progressive leader must stay ahead of the pack or the progressive constituents will leave her behind.

[Lena inRI]

17. Because she's mealy-mouthed. . .

unfit to be POTUS, IMHO.

Time has convinced me of this now.

:thumbsdown:

[leetrisck]

33. That's bush you just described

not Hillary -

[Lena inRI]

37. And neither should be POTUS . . .eom

:thumbsdown:

[loudsue]

98. It's Hillary. Just another politician....like bush.

It's time we ran the whole lot of them out of office, and start over with some REAL Americans, who truly give a damn about THE PEOPLE.

I know, personally, some of the biggest Clinton benefactors and family friends...they are SOOOOOO republican-lite.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same.

:kick:

[jayctravis]

103. Isn't Hillary's thing more about healthcare?

I'd much rather have that as an agenda.

Didn't a lot of the Senators get flamboozled? They voted to give Bush the leverage to "put War on the table" for negotiation purposes and George went "Hooah! Call up the guard!"

[Imagevision]

168. Hillary? how stupid! - between her and Bill, no intelligent response?

It makes me wonder about the Clinton's -- what are they both Carlyle-bound...?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

[Kurovski]

161. All Senators work under the threat of being ousted

by the electorate.

Hillary would be a fool to not respond to the electorate.

And I know she's not a fool.

[Maccagirl]

2. Hillary, dear, you don't give someone a blank check

and then bitch about how they spend it. If you plead ignorance about George W. Bush and his agenda,then you have no business being a Senator.

[Nite Owl]

13. If we knew why didn't they?

Ignorance is an excuse. She won't be getting my vote this time around if I have to write in my dog's name instead.

[Pepperbelly]

46. We DIDN'T know ...

and to pretend that your suppositions represented the general public view in those dark days is absurd. The general public, at the time, believed what they were told by the government. I gave it much thought at the time and truly did not know what was true.

Neither did anyone else who hadn't been in the positions of Blix or the other inspectors like Ritter. Neither one of them enthusiastically embraced the CIA assessment but I personally did not know what to believe.

The nature of the threat was such that it would have been horrific non-feasence to ignore it.

Now, after searching the joint from top to bottom, we know it was all lies and bullshit. But if you somehow claim that YOU knew it in 02 or some such, you are clearly conflating opinion with fact because at that time, the true facts simply weren't known.

[sadiesworld]

50. "The nature of the threat was such that it would have been

horrific non-feasance to ignore it."

Please elaborate.

[Pepperbelly]

58. I did in my

other response in this segment of the thread.

Short version, the intersection of a possible deadly threat and the certainty claimed by the intelligence community demanded that the situation be addressed.

My own personal mode would have been to allow Blix to carry on. That was not what Bush did and now, in the fullness of time, we know how much erroneous information was being peddled. At the time, I was confused.

[sadiesworld]

60. The only real threat was nuclear

and that was debunked by Jimmy Carter, among others, well before the war. The idea that Sadaam had a secret nuke program that could be up and ready any time in the next decade should have been LAUGHABLE to a US senator.

The only real question (for serious people) in the lead-up was whether Sadaam still had some unused, viable chemical weapon stockpiles. Most concluded that he probably did not and EVEN IF he did the greatest threat was that they would be used on our invading troops.

Of course, there were the drones that could be shipped here in parts, assembled at the port, and then flown across the country dispersing chemical clouds. LOL.

C'mon, please tell me you remember all this shit?!

[Pepperbelly]

64. It wasn't debunked convincingly enough

for me to be comfortable. I would have felt better if Blix had continued.

I paid attention and there was always information ... this way, that way ... there was really no way of me telling who was telling the truth and who was lying.

I suspected Bush because I suspect his methods but that was not sufficient to convince me that there was nothing to it. The possible threat was too serious, IMO, to discount without the full inspection protocols.

[welshTerrier2]

54. "horrific non-feasance to ignore it"

wellllll, OK ... i certainly agree with your first point that one shouldn't conflate supposition with knowledge ...

but there were some pretty good foundations for those suppositions ...

first, it was or should have been pretty damned clear to everyone that bush was just dying to follow the PNAC agenda and go to war ... then we had the lies about the aluminum tubes ... most people knew that was bullshit ... it showed us, or should have showed us, that bush was a lier ... and then there was all that nasty business with the Niger memos ... more lying and more bullshit ... these weren't suppositions ... we knew bush wanted to go to war and we knew he had lied about at least some of his evidence ... and then, of course, there was all that crapola about linking the war to 9/11 ... and as you pointed out, we did have the expert testimony of Blix and Ritter ... i met Ritter ... the guy is a straight arrow ... he tells it like it is ... and finally, Saddam was pinned down by the US military for more than 10 years ... the idea that he was building this deadly force when we were monitoring everything he did just never seemed credible ...

now one can certainly draw lines between knowledge and supposition ... but i certainly think there was substantial basis and credible information before the IWR and before the invasion to draw the conclusion that bush's case was nothing more than "facts being fixed around the policy" ... it may have been supposition but it was based on some pretty solid evidence ...

as to your statement that it would have been "horrific non-feasance to ignore it", are you saying that given what was "known", or at least what was believed based on the available data, that we had to invade Iraq? i just don't see that ... the horrific malfeasance was paying any attention to what an imperialist hawk like bush had to say about anything, especially after being caught in a parade of lies ...

[Pepperbelly]

57. no ...

in response to your last paragraph first ... the non-feasence would have been to ignore the intelligence data. Not to go to war but to fail to address it at all.

There were some indications in the press at the time but that is the key statement ... at the time. Neither Blix nor Ritter had actually completed the protocols for the inspections so they rightly caged their positions accordingly. The CIA was allegedly certain of it. We know now that it was bullshit ... but at the time, I would have carefully considered what they said and allowed Blix to finish the inspections rather than warning him to leave so we could war on them.

I also believe that you are somewhat conflating what we know now with what we knew then. My best and clearest recollection of my thinking at the time was confusion. A huge threat (if true) and our own intelligence community claiming it as true. That intersection of circumstance had me squarely on the horns of a dilemma.

[welshTerrier2]

62. my timeline ...

yes, it's possible my timeline is wrong but i did think the aluminum tubes and the Niger memo stuff happened before the invasion ... and i'm sure Ritter said Saddam didn't have WMD before the invasion ...

one thing's for sure though, i was not "squarely on the horns of a dilemma" ... call it supposition or knowledge or even wild speculation, i never trusted anything bush ever said about Iraq and i was totally opposed to the invasion ... even if Saddam had WMD's, i never believed he was an "imminent threat" ...

i had no confusion; just a deep abiding belief we were being lied to by an asshole ...

[Pepperbelly]

70. But ...

if you truly had the responsibility and you were getting face-to-face briefings from Tenant and his underlings ... as Arlo Gutrie would put --- 27 8 by 10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph of the back of each one explaining what each one was ... I cannot help but think that I would have had a hard time believing that those people were lying to me right to my face.

Would it really have been that easy for you?

[welshTerrier2]

76. i took the issue very seriously but ...

i deeply believed we were being lied to and i didn't hesitate to oppose the war, right from the start, because of it ...

as i said, and i'm sure many would disagree with this, EVEN IF Saddam had WMD, i did not believe any evidence was presented to indicate he was an "imminent threat" ... i mean China has nuclear weapons ... Russia has them ... these are not our closest allies ... Saddam had "no fly zones" for ten years ... it just didn't make any sense that he could threaten the US or that he had any inclination to ...

and i also remember writing extensively about taking out Saddam and creating a dangerous power vacuum ... it seemed to me if we were really worried about terrorism and al Qaeda that taking out Saddam was going to make things much worse for the US ... i remember asking the guy in the office next to mine: "do you really believe invading Iraq will make the US safer?" ...

so, i don't want to tell you it would have been "easy" for me ... these are issues of life and death ... but choosing war is not always the safer course ... i took the decision very seriously but for me, it was clear as hell that we should not have attacked Iraq ...

[Pepperbelly]

80. I wouldn't have either ...

It's not something you can take back if you fuck up. For starters, I would have let Blix continue rather than warning him out prior to the attack and then claiming Saddam put him out.

No, for starters, the inspection protocols should have been concluded.

[Vincardog]

148. It would have been that easy if I had to appoint the Big Dick Cheney to

manufacture the evidence to support the PNAC agenda. Don't forget the DSM. The evidence was being 'FIT to the policy'. Quit acting as if there was ever any good faith in this Mis Administration. They built it on fraud and maintain it on lies ON PURPOSE

[Pepperbelly]

150. but ...

I didn't know about DSM until this year. Did you know about it before now?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

160. DSM aside,

I never saw any credible evidence that Saddam was close to getting nukes, This despite the fact that they kept saying they were going to make a PUBLIC case for the war being necessary. Each time Bush made a speech, or Powell made his UN presentation it was always billed beforehand by the administration as "making the case." Powell presented cartoon drawings.

If the case was that Saddam might get nukes, they never made it.

At the same time, many authoritative figures (and a lot of the public including me) were making the case that invading Iraq would create more serious problems than it would solve. These predictions were proved true because of relatively straightforward factors involving Iraqi ethnic diversity and regional instability. In other words, this pre-emptive policy was demonstrably bad from the git-go.

Finally, as the MoveOn ads suggested, many people believed (rightly so, IMO, given what has happened with heightened terrorism around the globe) that invading Iraq made it MORE likely that a nuke would be detonated on American soil. I never heard those issues addressed by the presidential wannabes.

Gore addressed it in San Francisco about six months before the invasion:

"We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress - - since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network."

http://algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

That is not hindsight, but rather real leadership.

[Pepperbelly]

162. Remember where we started on this ...

My point is that the whole thing was very confusing, the allegations quite seriousw and at the time, we were not coming from a place where we knew one way or the other. We might have disbelieved Bush or mistrusted his motives but we just didn't know.

[Vincardog]

172. Ignorance is bliss.but it can be cured. You may not have known but I did.

I read the PNAC web site before the coup in 2000. I saw it coming and I said so. IF you were fooled by the BS spin machine I feel sorry for you.

[Pepperbelly]

180. You are a bit presumptuous in your comments and ...

it is not appreciated. You are assuming that I didn't have access to the information upon which you based your conclusion. Let me explain something to you ... not everybody looks at the same information and derives the same conclusion. Some people ... and I know this is new to you ... but some people actually insist upon information rather than merely intuiting based upon ideology. Some of us even have training in the proper evaluation of information.

Your sorrow for me is misplaced. In a big way.

I suspect that there is little information of which you were aware at the time that I was not and in fact, there may be substantial information I had that you did not. The mere suspicion of motive is insufficient for making policy decisions.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

182. I agree that the issue was confusing, but

even though the MSM coverage made it difficult to fathom, there were plenty of people with foreign policy credentials agreeing that unilateral, pre-emptive invasion was not the answer.

MSM were conflating chemical weapons (not a strategic issue) with nukes by slavishly using the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction." That played into the administration's hand. The term itself is not so much the issue as the muddled thinking around its usage. Who cared if Saddam had gas in 2003? No serious foreign policy person, not from a strategic view.

I disagree that the allegations about Saddam were quite serious, if you mean documented allegations in a context of going to war. The Bushies were talking hyperbolically about mushroom clouds and long range missiles, but trustworthy Democrats were talking about why containment was the first and more reasonable option.

As to Saddam giving nukes to Osama, the idea was preposterous, at least as a pretext to war. Osama is much more likely to get them from Pakistan or even Iran than a totalitarian secular cult-of-personilty regime as Saddam had. He loathed and distrusted Al Qaida.

So I expect the leaders of our party to make good, informed decisions when blood and treasure are on the line. I believe the decision made by Kerry, Edwards, HRC & Gephardt was political, as opposed to moral. They were at once wrong-headed and spineless, IMO.

Even if they weren't, if their decision involved conscience, as I believe in the case of those such as Lieberman and McCain, it still won't fly. McCain, Lieberman and others voting for the war exhibited profoundly bad judgement resulting in catastrophic human suffering, a weakening of America and a tragic strengthening of terrorism world-wide.

[Pepperbelly]

184. Actually ... I never believed that ...

preemptive, unilateral action was the correct response. It was mal-feasence rather than non-feasence which is what it would have been had the intelligence not been addressed.

Tell the truth ... if George Tenant sat down with you with all of the intelligence stuff ... the 27 8 by 10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was ... and he said that based on the intelligence gathered by our agencies and those of our allies, his best estimate was that Saddam was busily engaged in making nukes, wouldn't it have been impossible to completely discount?

It would have for me. And that is the position our Senators were in. I never support the war in Iraq but that doesn't mean that I can pretend that the state of knowledge now was the same state of knowledge that existed then.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

195. I completely accept your good faith,

my question about good faith was directed at those Dems with presidential ambitions who unanimously voted for the war. They were aware of the political hussle being played by Karl Rove, ie demanding a vote before the 2002 election. That is why Robert Byrd held up a copy of the Constitution on the floor of the Senate, repeatedly demanding "Why now?" Everyone knew the answer-- the White House was politicizing the war. That's something dangerously close to treason in my view, at the very least a gross violation of Bush's oath of office.

As to Tenant and his "evidence," I have never seen any evidence that he presented compelling information on nukes to anyone. But I could be wrong. If you can cite any instance of Tenant or others briefing congressional members on definitive proof of Iraqi nukes or their imminent development, please cite it. I am truly interested to see it.

But the historical context is that the White House already had no credibility in the fall of 2002. They had already demonstrated a willingness to break the law for political purposes, namely the illegal suppression of tens of thousands of black voters in Florida in 2000. They had already demonstrated their lack of integrity and care for American interests in the method of passing the Patriot Act by deception and arm twisting. They had already shown they were willing to subvert the political process in a way that would make Nixon blush. Simply by calling for a vote in Congress before the 2002 midterms (unlike in 1991, when Bush 41 brought Congress back after the 1990 midterm election), a "no" vote was justified.

In 2002 and early 2003, it was widely reported that Saddam probably didn't have nukes and was unlikely to be able to conceal the infrastructure necessary to make them. Remember when the Israelis blew up Saddam's plant in the 80s, tp prevent him from developing the bomb?

Containment, as had worked as a nuclear strategy for decades, remained a reasonable option even if Saddam had had nukes. When Musharraf dies or is overthrown, Pakistan will pose a much more real threat than Saddam would have. They have already sold nuclear technology on the black market. Also Iran and North Korea will be at least an equivalent threat to that Saddam would have posed. This was never discussed by the yes-voting Democrats, to the best of my knowledge. Nor the significant setback to our policy on terrorism, created by invading Iraq.

Gore urged Congress to vote down the resolution for these reasons. I urge you to study Gore's speech on September 23, 2002 and honestly answer-- with whom would you rather put your trust-- a yes voter or Gore?

http://algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

[Pepperbelly]

196. I do not ...

possess such evidence which probably displays a naive gullibility in believing that the elected officials of my party saw such evidence in the classified briefings given to members of Congress. Perhaps I am a babe in the woods but I do not mind giving them that benefit of the doubt.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

202. My last

is selected quotes of Gore from September 2002, many of them inherency arguments, why the invasion was wrong. Much of it seems prophetic now.

1. To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it.

2. Nevertheless, every Arab nation except Jordan supported our military efforts and some of them supplied troops. Our allies in Europe and Asia supported the coalition without exception. Yet this year, by contrast, many of our allies in Europe and Asia are thus far opposed to what President Bush is doing and the few who support us condition their support on the passage of a new U.N. resolution.

3. Third, in 1991, a strong United Nations resolution was in place before the Congressional debate ever began; this year although we have residual authority based on resolutions dating back to the first war in Iraq, we have nevertheless begun to seek a new United Nations resolution and have thus far failed to secure one.

4. Fourth, the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own.

5. Fifth, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a "no" vote - - even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme - - in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide's misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to "focus on the war."

6. Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.

7. The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular.

8. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq is the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

9. It is more important to note the consequences of an emerging national strategy that not only celebrates American strengths, but appears to be glorifying the notion of dominance. If what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our friends are legion; if what we represent to the world is empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion.

10. At this fateful juncture in our history it is vital that we see clearly who are our enemies, and that we deal with them. It is also important, however, that in the process we preserve not only ourselves as individuals, but our nature as a people dedicated to the rule of law.

11. Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.

12. If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack?

13. What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

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

[NMDemDist2]

189. Easy folks, keep it civil here n/t

[Nite Owl]

61. There was plenty of news out

at the time and it was exactly what I thought at the time. It was absolutely clear that he would do anything to get into Iraq because that was what they wanted to do in the first place. They gave him a carte blanche ticket to do what he wanted because they were afraid of voting against a war and being seen as lacking in defense credentials. Ritter wanted to wait and not go. They smeared him.

[BeachBuckeye]

65. Wrong!

We had Scott Ritter on our show at that time and he stated in no uncertain terms that "there are no WMD's left in Iraq". I believed him as did a hell of a lot of other people.

Guy

[Pepperbelly]

71. But what was Blix saying?

Blix was far more contemporaneous than Ritter at the time. Ritter had been out of the loop for several years at that point. Tenant was certainly convincing.

I think it is far easier to sit here with 20/20 hindsight and second guess. I have enough personal honesty to remember that I was truly uncertain what was true and what wasn't.

[bread_and_roses]

67. Virtually the entire world opposed the invasion, our Allies, the populace

of those Allies, husge numbers of US citizens. And the International Press had plenty of information on why the "WMD" were NOT substantiated to a degree that would support invasion, much less to a degree that would in any sane universe justify the bombing of civilians. The PNAC agenda was out there, the questions on the Uranium, the lack of support from the UN...

If we didn't "know" we had damn good reason to suspect - and so did Hillary. She gave the Imperialists approval because she was afraid to challenge them, as was Kerry.

If ANYONE should have known that the Radical Right was willing to lie and cheat for their agenda, it should have been Hillary.

I worked (locally) every day for four months on her campaign. Unless she does something to change my mind, I will not work for her and not vote for her. Because what difference did it make to the dead children in Iraq whether or not a D or an R was in that seat? And what better chance for life does a D who supports the continued slaughter of Iraqis make to the still-living children?

[Pepperbelly]

72. I think that you are telling the story that pleases you rather than the

story that actually occurred. Maybe if I were just a bit smarter than I am, I would have been just as certain as you, but alas, I was not. And now this stuff all looks like 20/20 hindsight to me.

[bread_and_roses]

110. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity were speaking even here

The World didn't protest? Our Allies supported us?
There were many contrary voices, including analysis from International Think Tanks and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity - before the invasion.

Here's Ray McGovern in an interview:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/03/03_400.html

"Ray McGovern: Well, two things on that. First, the proof is in the pudding. Read what we've written. Well before the war started, we were saying that there certainly weren't enough weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to warrant a war, that there weren't any weapons there that were even a threat to other countries in the region. Second, believe it or not, 85 percent of the material one needs to analyze these crucial problems is available publicly. This has always been the case. With the incredible amount of information available on the Internet, I can by ten o'clock in the morning, be morally certain that I have 80 to 90 percent of the information that's available on a given subject."

There were legitimate voices disputing the necessity for the War, there were reports of those voices, and I do not for one minute believe any of those Senators who voted for the IRW did not know that.

For more of their published writing leading up to the war see:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity

There were others, from other sources, my memory is quite clear on that. I used to have dozens bookmarked, but finally deleted them a year or so into the war.

The voices were there, the information was there.

[Pepperbelly]

146. and at the time ...

it was only opinion. No one knew with certainty. No one.

[Cha]

68. Maybe you didn't "know" but

but Millions across the World knew on Feb 15, 2003 when "The World Said NO to War".

I was there in NYC and we "knew"..call it fucking 6th Sense and or an educated guess that the bushwa was Lying their dirty asses off, AGAIN!

[Pepperbelly]

73. Maybe I just haven't learned the fine art of ...

convincing myself that whatever I happen to believe is true unless I actually ... you know ... know. I certainly did not nor did those here who boast of their immense knowledge in sniffing out the fraud.

[Cha]

78. Clark sounded like he knew..

I could have sworn he didn't think it was necessary to go bomb the shite outta Iraq.

[Pepperbelly]

191. I do not believe ...

that I ever claimed that it did. What I am saying is that what we know now is what we know now but it is not the same as what we knew then. At the time, the data conflicted.

But if you do not understand how someone sitting across from the head of the CIA and being told it was a certainty is not compelling, than I do not think that you are truly looking at it from that position.

[bvar22]

106. We KNEW!!!

We KNEW Al-Qaeda and Saddam were BLOOD enemies!

We KNEW that if Saddam did have some OLD American supplied WMDs burrried in the desert, they were degraded,
AND after 10 years of bombing and close surveilance, he had ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to DELIVER the weapons!

We KNEW! Check the archives!
YOU must have missed ALL these!

..."seven months before 9/11, George Tenet testified before Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States."

"in a Feb. 12, 2001 interview with the Fox News Channel Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: “Iraq is probably not a nuclear threat at the present time.”

"...intelligence reports released by the CIA and more than 100 interviews top officials in the Bush administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, gave to various Senate and Congressional committees and media outlets prior to 9-11 show that the U.S. never believed Saddam Hussein to be an imminent threat other than to his own people."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm


and this:

" And frankly they (the UN Sanctions) have worked. He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell Feb 24, 2001

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." ---Condoleezza Rice on CNN July 29, 2001

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm




2001: WH Admits Iraq Contained; Creates Agency to Circumvent Intel Agencies
In 2001 and before, intelligence agencies noted that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained after the Gulf War. In fact, former weapons inspector David Kay now admits that the previous policy of containment – including the 1998 bombing of Iraq – destroyed any remaining infrastructure of potential WMD programs.

OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS:
"As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997…and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA's verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED:
"I think we ought to declare a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States."

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED:
Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received.

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States…The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community."

The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence."
2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case
Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored.

JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT:
"In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea."

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS:
"The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials."

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT:
After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program."

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED:
"In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes."

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions."

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS:
"Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence."

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE:
"The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa."

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES:
The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium.

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE:
"The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force.

2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings
Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.

LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions."

JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium."

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections.

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program."

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD:
"A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ‘direct evidence’ that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,’ said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities."

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES:
IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong."

MAY 30, 2003 – INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED:
"A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'"

JUNE 6, 2003 – INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED:
"The CIA bowed to Bush administration pressure to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq , a leading national security historian concluded in a detailed study of the spy agency's public pronouncements."


WE KNEW!!!
So did the Democrats who voted FOR the War!



Republican GREED has now KILLED more Americans than Al Qaeda!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[CitrusLib]

118. Damn, straight!

I distinctly remember having numerous conversations with Repug friends and relatives about some of these very facts and articles! There are probably posts of mine from late 2001 into 2002 from other bulletin boards still floating around cyber space where I was railing against the Bush push to war. AND where I predicted exactly the outcome we're seeing today.

If it was that obvious to a suburban New Hampshire housewife, it should have been abundantly clear to every politician on the Hill. To claim ignorance is disingenuous at best and a treasonable lie at worst.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

119. What threat?!?!

Tens of millions in the US, Europe and around the world took to the streets because they knew it was a stupid, horrible idea.

Remember all those Bush speeches leading up to the war, where Bush was finally going to "make the case" to the American people? And Powell's speech at the UN complete with cartoon illustrations?

What was the threat? They kept saying "WMDs." That term is a red herring. The only real threat is a nuke. There was never any credible evidence that Saddam had reconstituted his infrastructure for nuke development. And containment was always the first line of defense, a la USSR, China, North Korea and Pakistan.

Please articulate some real threat that was posed. And please avoid the term WMD because that includes poison gas, which absolutely poses no strategic threat to the US. Let's not continue to play their game.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

120. Please check out this excerpt from Gore's speech

which he gave weeks before Hillary voted for the war. In that speech he includes six reasons why the resolution should be voted down, including the fact that Bush politicized the war by calling for a vote BEFORE the midterm elections. I would like your honest opinion on who had the better assessment of Bush's intentions, Gore or HRC?

http://algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

"FIRST THING FIRST: WAR ON TERRORISM To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. I don't think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify. Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment - - right now - - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein."

[mike_c]

127. "the nature of the threat was such..."

That is a lie, PB, and you know it. THERE WAS NO THREAT. None. Zero. Nada. There were only the lies that had been used to justify a decade of economic sanctions-- lies that were spun up at the last minute to prevent the U.N. from certifying Iraq's compliance with the disarmament mandate.

Stop spreading that filth. There was no threat, so it could not possibly have been "horrific non-feasence to ignore it." There was ample evidence of this AT THE TIME, too, e.g. statements by U.N. weapons inspectors, Hussein's disavowal of WMDs-- which were true all along-- Iraq's disarmament report (the one the U.S. censored, remember?), and Iraqs own history of disengagement since the Gulf War. Iraq did not respond to YEARS of provocation by coalition aircraft. THERE WAS NO THREAT, and it DOESN'T require hindsight to see that.

[IntravenousDemilo]

141. We knew it here in Canada

Mind you, we don't believe anything the US government tells us anyway.

[ProudDad]

154. Anyone who had the sense god gave a flea

and listened to anything other than the mass media hysterics knew that all of the "reasons" were bullshit.

I KNEW in '98 that it was bullshit!

I SURE AS HELL knew in '02 that it was all bullshit and that Saddam had nearly NO viable military left.

I KNEW that anything any of those repukes said was a lie.


(edit)
Sorry about the rant... To give your statement its due, it just didn't pass the smell test that 7 years of inspections and 11 years of the strongest sanctions in the world had still left Saddam with WMD capability. It was just not credible on the face of it.

[acmavm]

163. We know. Here's what we knew. There was no justification to attack a

sovereign nation who did nothing to us. The UN weapons inspectors were in the finding NOTHING. That bush** was a lying fuck and everything he did turned to shit.

Please recall his ratings (or whatever you call them) were tanking up to 911. But in the lag between 911 and Shock and Awe we had enough time to see that no Iraqis flew any planes, or were involved. That we were being lied to because there were intelligence assessments that said that there was no Iraqi WMD stash, and SANCTIONS HAD BADLY DEPLETED ALL THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS IN IRAQ.

We knew then, just like we know now, that this was was unjustified. Ask the people who were arrested for demonstrating during that horrible time when they were persecuted and pilloried for being RIGHT.

[Zhade]

177. You're wrong. See post #106.

NT!

[TreasonousBastard]

199. Just to cut through a few pounds of crap, I agree...

that no one knew for sure that the White House was lying through their teeth, simply blinded by their ambitions for war, or for some other reason everything they said was bullshit.

We all suspected it, and we all "knew" it was all lies, but where was the proof?

To say that the President and his chief advisors are lying sacks of shit is not normally done except by people, like us, who are largely out of the loop. Senators are not normally given to outright calling the President a liar or a fool when national security is the issue. If it turns out the Prez was right, well, goodbye Senator. Lies are, quite frankly, the norm on security issues, and usually for good reason.

Of course, no one is really prepared to deal with a President who is BOTH a liar and a fool. It seems it's never happened in this country before, and will take some getting used to.

At any rate, everyone had all the public knowledge available and it didn't look good for the White House but we always understood, at least until now, that they have sources and information unavailable to us and we have to trust them to some extent. That's what happened.

We got the War Powers Act because Viet Nam seemed like a good idea at the time but turned out to be a most incredibly bad one, fed by lies and hubris. Let's see what eventually comes out of this.

[Zhade]

210. See post #106.

Pepperbelly is wrong. The historical record shows this.

[Olney Blue]

83. Diebold hates dogs votes too.

[personman]

111. She's far from ideal but...

If you don't vote for the democrat you are helping the republican win.
IMO that is just a "I didn't get what(who) I want so I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality.

I'll be pissed if we don't get someone more progressive, but Bush-lite is STILL MUCH BETTER then Bush. I'll suck it up and support our candidate regardless.

Don't vote for her if you don't want to, but I better not hear you complaining if a republican wins.

-personman

[tabasco]

131. Great analogy. Your statement says it all.

Do any of these politicians give a damn about the American troops getting killed for NOTHING?? It seems like Hillary is just another cowarly politician, always looking at polls and not standing on pinciple. I remember walking up out of the Vietnam Memorial crying and shouting, "FOR WHAT!?! FOR WHAT!?!"

[Zhade]

176. Notice this little tidbit...

A spokesman for Senator Clinton, while not commenting about Ms. Sheehan's remarks, said that the senator, while voting to give President Bush the authority to go to war, has been very critical of the way he has chosen to use that authority.

Despite what many Dem partisans here attempt to sell, even Clinton's own aide acknowledges that the IWR was a vote to authorize going to war.

Now, will some say that this aide is "letting Bush off the hook" by acknowledging the reality of the IWR vote?

Or will those who have strained credibility to offer apologia for the IWR vote finally be intellectually honest enough to admit that even those close to the ones who voted for it saw, and see, it as a vote to authorize going to war as b*s* saw fit?

Do we believe those who desperately spin the IWR vote to protect their beloved candidates, or do we believe those who work with the pro-IWRers every day?

I think I can safely say that Clinton's aide is closer to the truth on that matter than those who excuse away her - and other's - collaboration. Clinton's own aide has basically stated that "yeah, she voted for the war, but not the way it's being carried out".

With all due respect to those partisans, check and mate.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

5. Again... Cindy is right on target!

We need leadership NOW, not during elections!

[zann725]

15. Exactly! Only Hilary will NEVER be anything BUT cautious...

no matter WHAT she might occasionally pretend. She's DLC through and through. That's WHO she is. Some might like her for that, but she'll NEVER get my vote...even if she's the ONLY DEM that runs in '08 or later.

[faithfulcitizen]

6. huh? did you just lump Clark in w/Hillary & Kerry? News Flash:

Clinton & Kerry Voted for the war, Clark didn't. He's been speaking out against war in Iraq since September of 2001. In fact, tonight he's speaking at the 'Out of Iraq' Congressional Caucus. Clark has met with several family members of fallen soldiers, so please don't threaten "Sheehanization" on Clarkies. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful day.

:spank:

[jonnyblitz]

10. but doesn't Clark want to stay and "fix it"?

:shrug:

[faithfulcitizen]

14. He's advocating creating a contact group of middle east countries...

coming together to figure out how to fix it. But, the fact that we're there and it's now become a terrorist breeding ground and a cival war isn't Wes Clark's fault. He's got better ideas than anyone else out there. And the point is, he's speaking out and has been for 4 years.

[Schema Thing]

26. Yes he does, and he's very clear about his reasons why...

... and, as much as someone who isn't in power can be, he's been very clear about the way forward.

I love Cindy, but I don't think Clark needs any lectures from her, or anyone else for that matter.

My gut tells me we should leave now, my intellect tells me that Clark is probably correct.

[faithfulcitizen]

30. "My gut tells me we should leave now, my intellect tells me that Clark...

...is probably correct." Well said!

[AX10]

188. I agree.

[confludemocrat]

198. Almost everybody was OK with Cindy until she got around to the "enablers"

Now they have second thoughts. The Kerry worshippers, the Clark worshippers, the Clinton worshippers are all hawking tainted meat and calling it steak.

We simply must withdraw the war is illegal and its continuance is equally criminal, no ifs ands or buts.

[welshTerrier2]

11. News Flash: no, i didn't

what i said was, that unlike Clark and Kerry, i hold out no hope for Clinton's Iraq position ...

and if I read Clark's statement correctly, he still believes a positive outcome can be achieved by remaining in Iraq if the policy is changed ... is this a correct statement?

if so, it is not the position of the anti-war movement ... please clarify ...

[faithfulcitizen]

16. sorry, I didn't see the distinction-still don't think you can compare

Kerry & Clark on the matter either. Clark has been practically screaming from the rooftops "this war is a mistake" from the git-go. I agree that we need to try to remedy the situation. We broke it, now we need to *try* to fix it. But, honestly, under this leadership, I don't know how. But, I do believe if Clark had more dem friends that would support his ideas and be more vocal, the pressure on this admin would greatly be increased.

[welshTerrier2]

20. i say this to you with genuine respect

i respect Clark immensely ... i really do ... but his current position will not serve the US, the Iraqis or his own campaign well ...

his analysis is excellent but it's too late to "fix" Iraq ... we have to leave ... the anti-war movement has finally taken off ... it will crush those who are too slow to jump onboard ...

i urge you to lobby Clark to join us ... i, for one, would be unbelievably appreciative of his support ... we cannot keep requesting it ... soon, those of us who call for withdrawal must fight against those who do not ...

[Clark2008]

35. Pulling out now would leave another rouge nation that hates us

Remember Afghanistan.

We have to "fix" it, or at least put the good faith effort to bring in other people to help us do it or we risk another 9/11.

Hate breeds hate.

Of course, I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-Iraqi-war, the same as Clark. I'm for doing what needs to be done to stop bleeding the people of Iraq in favor of corporations, get our men and women out of there and get that country on the road to peace - whether it's through democracy or their own making or some other method. I frankly don't care what their government is comprised of as long as its peaceful - to its people and to the Western world.

[welshTerrier2]

36. if bush "fixes" Iraq ...

it will be a US puppet regime ... how does Clark propose we get rid of Chalabi as the Oil Minister? you think it's an accident he's in that position? how about Wolfowitz at the World Bank? coincidence? all the corporate ducks have been lined up ...

the whole damned thing is about oil and imperialism ... staying longer is NOT going to change that ... and negotiating anything while the US is still occupying Iraq blocks any possibility of progress ...

you said: "I'm for doing what needs to be done to stop bleeding the people of Iraq in favor of corporations" ... i couldn't agree more ... has Clark acknowledged that that is exactly what bush is currently doing? i ask because i asked him that very question and he did not seem to accept my premise ... bush's goal is corporate exploitation; not stability and democracy ... comments ??

[Clark2008]

39. Of course it's about oil and imperialism

But, if Clark was in charge, Chalabi wouldn't be within 10,000 feet of Iraq.

Clark has proposals, but he can't force BushCo. to act in any other way than with cronyism to support their oil fetishes.

I believe Clark's proposal would work, but we're going to need a Democratic Congress to put the pressure on BushCo. to make SURE it works.

This boils down to waking the people from their slumber, which is all of our jobs. The media sure as hell isn't doing it and neither are the kool-aid drinkers.

Diebold or not - if the majority takes control, the majority wins. And the majority wants to find a safe way OUT of this war.

[welshTerrier2]

42. the majority is calling for immediate withdrawal

safe way out? sure ... but do it now ...

and, my question remains: has Clark acknowledged that bush is in Iraq
for "oil and imperialism" ???

if so, please educate me ...

[Clark2008]

44. The majority don't realize that this is exactly what happened in

Afghanistan. If they did, they'd be more supportive of a clear exit policy that leaves us more of a good guy than bad. However, I really don't think the majority knows what they want - the polls simply state that we're on the wrong path in Iraq. Few say, "Get out, period."

That said, yes, Clark has acknowledged that we're there for, at least, the PNAC. He was the ONLY primary candidate to acknowledge there was a group of American imperialists (which we all know are oil imperialists).

Here:

Inspiring smoke screens

Just as they counseled President Bush to take on the tyrannies of the Middle East, so the neoconservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s advised Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to confront the Soviet Union and more aggressively deploy America's military might to challenge the enemy. As an Army officer in and out of Washington, I met many who would later star in the neoconservative movement at conferences and briefings. They're rightly proud of serving under Ronald Reagan, as I am. And as someone who favored a strong U.S. role abroad, I received a good deal of sympathy from them. As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their Project for a New American Century seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.

September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.

For them, the key quality shared by Reagan and the current President Bush is moral clarity. Thus, for instance, long-time neoconservative writer and editor Norman Podhoretz, after noting approvingly that Bush's stark phrase "Axis of Evil" echoes Reagan's "Evil Empire," wrote in Commentary magazine: "The rhetorical echoes of Reagan reflected a shared worldview that Bush was bringing up to date now that the cold war was over. What Communism had been to Reagan in that war, terrorism was to Bush in this one; and as Reagan had been persuaded that the United States of America had a mission to hasten the demise of the one, Bush believed that we had a mission to rid the world of the other."

In the neoconservative interpretation, Reagan's moral absolutism allowed him to take on the Soviet Union by any means necessary: Because he recognized the supreme danger the Soviets posed, he was willing to challenge it with a massive military buildup. In this understanding, the moral equivocation of Carter and his predecessors left them satisfied with the failed, halfway strategy of containment. Only when Reagan changed the moral template of the conflict, their argument goes, was America able to get past the weak pieties of containment and rid the world of Soviet tyranny.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html

[eridani]

99. Afghanistan is presently not as screwed up as Iraq--

--and the main reason for that is that there are many fewer European and US soldiers there.

[MADem]

123. Afghanistan, for all intents and purposes=Kabul

The President of that land is in fact the Mayor of Kabul. Out in the hinterlands, women and children continue to suffer, the opium grows, the warlords reign....and life goes on as it always has, for the most part.

[paulk]

124. the majority are NOT calling for immediate withdrawel

Withdrawel, yes - 3 mos, 6 mos, a year or two... what the majority of Americans want is at least a plan.

But, the majority is not calling for the kind of immediate withdrawel you advocate, and saying it is, over and over on this board, is still not going to make it true.

[welshTerrier2]

164. YES - they are ...

"A Gallup poll published on Monday found 66 percent of respondents favored the immediate withdrawal of some or all of the U.S. troops in Iraq, a 10 percentage point jump in two weeks."

source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1146056

and your statement about the timeframes seems very unrealistic to me ... i don't think the trend among Americans is to support another year or two of this totally failed war ... after Katrina, and perhaps Rita, the push is to spend money at home ...

as the news from Iraq gets worse and worse, and it will, calls for total withdrawal will only increase, not decrease ... the writing is on the wall ...

[paulk]

166. the key word is "some"

"some" is not a call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which is your criteria for supporting Democrats, as noted upthread.

that's what I'm talking about


You're setting up an unrealistic expectation based on a disingenuous argument. When public opinion swings over 50% for getting out everyone - not "some", then you will see action from our government. And it will most likely come from Republicans worried about getting elected in 2006. Because Bush doesn't care what the Democrats think.

[welshTerrier2]

167. the key word is "immediate"

i won't go back and forth with you any further on the gallup results ... you believe whatever you choose to ...

but understand this ... i just told a DNC fundraiser to get lost ... last year, i contributed some serious money to Kerry's campaign ... see the change?

if Democrats continue to believe they will ultimately win over those of us who are sick and tired of this war, i wish them luck ... keep in mind that polls being cited are polls of the American people; not just Democrats ... there is a huge frustration with the Party over this issue ... if you and others choose not to believe it, you do so at your own peril ...

i'm done "just going along" ... what's a "disingenous argument" is your statement that the 2/3 who called for "immediate" withdrawal might be willing to wait another year or two ... the Democrats are badly out of touch with their own constituency and they'd better get things straightened out long before the midterm season begins ... they are rapidly running out of time ...

Democrats are feeling a little too cocky about next year; they shouldn't be ... more losses are a very real possibility ... the tide against the war has clearly turned and most Americans, let along most Democrats, are no longer looking for "tweaks" on how to "fix Iraq" ... pretending that is not the case is a very foolish course ...

[paulk]

170. what are you going to do, then????

sit at home?

vote third party?

What do you hope to accomplish with your non - support??

Because what you will accomplish is the election of more Republicans.

And they're the ones who started this goddamn war!

[welshTerrier2]

171. i'm glad you asked ...

right now, what i've been doing is talking to all the Clark or Kerry supporters i can find ... i even was able to have an exchange directly with Wes Clark although that will require some follow-up ...

i believe, if the US had stayed in Vietnam another 10 or 20 years, we still would not have been successful ... can anyone look at Iraq and believe the US occupation is helping the situation? i do not believe that anything positive can be achieved in Iraq while the US remains there ... and i'm not calling for an immediate withdrawal as the only path worth considering ... i think a case can be made for a very short-term occupation, say 3 months or less ... but i see nothing that can be gained in 6 months or a year or two years or whatever that cannot be achieved in 3 months ... frankly, i'm skeptical anything can be achieved at all ... the US is a major obstacle, not an aid, to progress in Iraq ...

so, to answer your question, my current approach is to do all i can to convince Clark and Kerry to step up to the plate and lead the "peace movement" ... and if they don't want to represent the views i hold, i want to be up front with them and their supporters that i will not support them ... at some point, we have to stop pretending the Democratic Party represents us if they continue to refuse to do so ...

and so, what will i do if no prominent Democrats step up to the plate ??? well, i will put issues ahead of Party ... i will continue to work for and support progressive Democrats as my first choice ... and in races where none is found, and that includes the Presidential race, i will look to third parties ...

if i am in a miniscule minority who chooses this course, no harm will come to the eventual Democratic nominee ... if my views are held by a significant number of Democrats, perhaps someone in the Party better start paying more attention to us ... roll the dice, my friend ... all i can do right now is try to make my position clear ...

[paulk]

181. if you really want to help progressive Democrats

then you will work toward giving them a Congressional majority.
Even if it means supporting Dems you disagree with. Because, even if the party as a whole doesn't represent you, there are plenty of individual elected Democrats who do.

All else is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[welshTerrier2]

183. i am not going to vote for people who refuse to represent me ...

the people who are "cutting off their noses to spite their faces" are elected Democrats who are turning there backs on the majority of us who have had it with Iraq and are no longer interested in hearing about how "this thing can still succeed if ..."

we're done; it's over; get with the program ...

ABB is dead; voting for candidates just because they are Democrats is dead; it's time to put issues ahead of Party ... i hope we have the support of Democrats on issues we care about ... if we do, we'll support them ... if we don't, we'll fight them ...

i'm sick of having platforms and policies dictated down from the top; it's time to have our candidates align themselves with the views of their constituencies ... btw, i think Democrats have heard the warnings and understand the situation very well ... i think it's only a matter of time until they start showing us a more enlightened vision on Iraq ... at least i hope so ...

[TankLV]

41. As opposed to what?

NOW it is a "rogue nation that hate us". It can't be any worse.

Get out NOW. It will only get worse if we stay.

[Clark2008]

45. As opposed to using what standing we have left in the world as

a leader and a power to get the Iraqi neighbors to help.

It will get worse, either way, Tank. You know that.

Might as well TRY to get out with the best face-saving stance as possible (and, no, I don't believe Bush can do that, but I do believe there is a way. Too bad Bush is still president). On edit: and I don't mean face-saving for face-savings' face. I mean it in that we need to not be such bullies and show the rest of the world that fact so our people - civilian and military - aren't threatened.

BTW, I'm an expert on the Middle East. I don't get paid, so I'm technically not an "expert," per se, but my life history makes me one. I could wax poetic about their culture, way of life, religions, politics and thoughts for days.

I'm not asking you to just "trust me," on this; I'm just, however, pointing out that I do know a little about what I'm discussing.

[NMDemDist2]

190. Easy folks, keep it civil here n/t

[nvliberal]

21. Clark didn't

because he wasn't in an elected office. Neither was Dean.

It's easy to play quarterback when you're not playing the game, and who knows how Clark and Dean would have voted had they been in Congress.

It's one thing for somebody to blather about being "against" the war, but it's another to have to put his vote where his blather is.

The plain truth is we are NOT going to be out of Iraq anytime soon. Not only because there's the threat of civil war there, but the neocons and Big Oil will NEVER agree to pulling out of there because of the oil reserves.

We can't let the Chinese have that part of the world, you know.

[faithfulcitizen]

23. Is it easy to testify to Congress in 2002 that war in Iraq is a mistake?

To go up against the administration and congress that's pushing for it? Cause' that's what Clark did.

[Clark2008]

53. Yeah, but Clark testified before the HASC that it was a mistake.

Say what you want about the fact he didn't have a vote, but he DID tell the Congress NOT to vote for the Iraqi War.

I like Dean, but I can't say the same thing for him.

[paulk]

129. You can give Clark credit for changing his mind, but

he did say, at the time, that he would have voted yes on the IWR.




http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

[autorank]

7. You go Cindy..tell all the Democrats this...the best voted against the war

...it's time for the rest to catch up. Thanks Sen. Byrd, Bob Graham, Hollings, etc. You make me very proud to be a Democrat.

[seafey]

87. But Democrats have supported this war for the most part...... nt

[wtbymark]

9. By By Hillary

you'll be lucky to keep your senate seat

[sunnystarr]

52. She'll win her senate seat without a prob.

But nationally she doesn't have a chance unless she starts suporting the right side of the issues and calling this administration out and exposing them for what they are. That's what people are waiting for.

[Yupster]

105. I don't think Hillary has to do anything

She will announce for president and there will be a media sensation unlike anything we've seen surrounding a candidate yet.

The media will follow her 24 hours a day and the average voter will not even know there are other Democratic candidates in the race. She will suck in all the news coverage and all the dollars. There never will be a primary race. It will be over before it starts.

Hillary doesn't have to do anything for anyone.

That's my opinion anyway.

[howmad1]

153. And she will lose by a landslide!

[peacetalksforall]

18. I see the Dems as taking three paths.

Those who (too) frequently walk with the Republicans.

Those who walk with the people.

Those who walk for themselves on a path as wide and as safe and as lofty as the Great Wall of China.

It's very easy to know who is on which path.

[GayCanuck]

19. I don't like Hillary;

she was there when her Husband was bombing Baghdad in 1998 and then signed up for the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. To me, your party's DLC are nothing but freepers at heart. You need more Howard Dean and far less Hillary.

[welshTerrier2]

25. more Howard Dean?

well, more Howard Dean than Hillary is fine ...

but let's be clear on Dean's position on Iraq: "we're stuck there" ...

maybe Dean's stuck there but a majority of Americans want to be represented by a party that gets us "un-stuck" ... it's way past time for Dean and the Democrats to get "un-stuck" and start representing the majority view ...

it might even help the Democrats win an election or two ...

the Democratic message should be: "we've stood behind the president because he felt this was the best strategy for the country ... but it is now clear that his policy in Iraq is a total failure and the American people have had enough ... it is time, as quickly and as safely as possible, to withdraw each and every American soldier out of Iraq ... we should do whatever we can to facilitate a regionally-negotiated solution to Iraq's internal strife and provide whatever humanitarian aide is necessary ... above all, the US must make it eminently clear that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people and no government or corporation has a right to exploit it for their own greed ... we are calling for complete, immediate withdrawal because each day of continued US occupation drives peace and stability in Iraq further and further away."

[GayCanuck]

28. Yes

good reply and I agree.

[LittleClarkie]

22. God love ya, Cindy. But I don't think that's your call to make.

Yer not one of her constituents. And last time I heard, she was doing quite well approval-wise.

[enough already]

24. "A spokesman for Senator Clinton...."

"A spokesman for Senator Clinton, while not commenting about Ms. Sheehan's remarks, said that the senator, while voting to give President Bush the authority to go to war, has been very critical of the way he has chosen to use that authority."

This type of double-talk was very effective for Kerry in the election. Does anyone in this party EVER learn? If something is wrong, then fucking say it is wrong!

[Pepperbelly]

48. What she said is entirely true.

What part of that was untrue?

She did vote for the IWR. She has been very critical of the way he used that authority. What else do you want her to say?

She is not going to get up before the press and curse Bush, call him a monster, throw him the finger or anything like that. I have read her criticisms and do not know how more succinctly they could have been put.

[Blue_Roses]

27. this really pisses me off

Now is not the time to be issuing threats. I'm all for accountability, but come on...

Hillary has been very critical of the war, but if Cindy hasn't noticed lately, there's quite a bit going on now...

I've just about lost faith in Cindy.:eyes:

[leetrisck]

32. Agree with you - Cindy is getting way off message

PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS AND LEAVE IT THERE AND POUND AWAY AND THAT IS SQUARELY ON BUSH'S SHOULDERS.

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. Not correct.

Bush was enabled by every Senator who voted for his war. Including Hillary.

[enough already]

113. Cindy lost her son to this disaster

She has the moral authority to say whatever the hell she wants on the war, and she is 100% RIGHT on this issue.

[katinmn]

142. You're right. The time was five years ago!

[BlueStater]

29. With all due respect to Cindy

I don't think that's her call to make.

Hillary is very popular in New York and the chances of her not getting re-elected are rather unlikey, especially given the weak candidate the rightards have running against her.

[BIG Sean]

31. Come on Cindy...give it a rest

I respect Ms. Sheehan, and her right to voice her opinion, but it is starting to sound like she is starting to believe her own hype.

I am a New Yorker, and I think Mrs. Clinton has done a great job here...am I not supposed to vote for her because Ms. Sheehan says so?

No wonder Democrats are in trouble. I am voting for Hillary in '06!

[PuraVidaDreamin]

121. unfortunately, you have to vote for hrc- what is your alternative...

Cindy is angry at every reason her son
ended up dead in Bushy's illegal and immoral
war- including the mainstream dlc republicans
who forgot who they were voted in by.

If she feels the need to help others
see what she now knows, then Cindy,
go for it.

just my prediction- the dlc'ers need to turn
up the heat on Bush and call him what
he is, a liar- or they go no where

[leetrisck]

34. This is what Bill O'Reilly said Cindy should do

sorry she is listening to him these days - she was doing a lot better camped out at Crawford. I'm sorry she's doing this. She's completely lost focus

[LittleClarkie]

43. I know I fear some "jump the shark" action here

I wish she'd have just followed Bush to Washington and camped again.

[welshTerrier2]

56. here's the problem ...

what good is pressuring bush to call for withdrawal when you can't even get your own party to represent your views? it seems to me that we have to line up our own team and make sure they'll act as an opposition party before we can take on the republicans ...

is it true that Hillary has called for more troops in Iraq??

[lynne]

40. CATFIGHT !

Not sure how wise it is for Cindy to be issuing threats and ultimatums to well-respected members of her own party.

The meaning of "divide and conquer" is to divide the other side - NOT your own people.

[Pepperbelly]

49. I was totally on Cindy's side until this shit.

She doesn't even get to vote on that, much less issue ultimatums.

I don't like ultimatums myself. When someone gives me an ultimadum, I tend to tell them to fuck themselves and do what they gotta do.

[Jacobin]

55. its how you end a war

you put it in the politicians faces and make them squirm until they will stand up to the war machine and finally say no to utter insanity.

Its gonna get a lot nastier and more ultimatums will be issued before we will end this travesty.

it took a decade to stop VietNam AFTER it became utterly unwinnable.

stand up and speak truth to power. confront them. insult them. don't let them get away with bubblespeak.

I say "go Cindy"

[Pepperbelly]

59. This ain't at that point ...

After living through Vietnam, this doesn't look anything like the political climate that forced that issue.

[Jacobin]

74. It needs to get there sooner rather than later

we are almost at 2000 dead americans with no end in sight and Hillary suggesting adding MORE troops.

She is jumping off the cliff she is not connected to reality.

She needs to be confronted over and over and over in the most direct way that you can't sit around pontificating and lying and covering for the neocons.

Do you really want this to go on for ten or fifteen more years?

[Pepperbelly]

75. I don't know anything about you but ...

multiply that 2,000 by 25, add a draft, and shake for 3 or 4 years.

[genius]

63. Way to go, Cindy! I know of some more Senators who need put in their

places.

[Neshanic]

66. Call them out Cindy. You go. Hillary will obviously triangulate.

[leetrisck]

69. I will no longer support Cindy in this

financially or otherwise if this is the route she takes. I've been very supportive but this is just plain silly. I thought Cindy had a much better handle on this and was really gaining support and now this. Why doesn't she just drop the "bush thing" completely and go get attention any way she can. I am very, very disappointed in her but she is free to do as she wishes.

[Skip Intro]

79. How can she ligitimately attack those who brought the war and ingore those

who carried it?

If Cindy's sincere, she has no choice. And I believe she's sincere. Hillary did enable bush to do what he has done. Hillary knows now that it was bullshit. Hillary should say so. Along with every other Senate Democrat.

but wait, this does put Hillary in a corner, because it will help the repubs accuse her of being "anti-troop" (as opposed to those who want to let them continue to die). that is a political tightrope.. I feel for Hillary.

Ugh! Some compromise. We don't want Hillary to lose.

But Hillary did enable bush to wreak havoc and she has to know by now that it was bullshit, and Cindy has every right to ask Hillary to speak the truth.

[leetrisck]

84. Cindy has no more rights to do anything than the rest

of us do. Hillary Clinton has worked long and hard for the troops in her State. When Hillary is Commander in Chief - then Cindy should have at it if she so feels - otherwise she's losing lots of support and sounding silly.

[Skip Intro]

93. Hillary has to prove herself deserving -

Its not just a given.

And, no, Cindy has no more right to do anyhing than anyone else, what does that have to do with anything? I don't get the false time limits on when Cindy can and can't say something about HIllary.

Hillary voted to give bush the power to invade Iraq.

Cindy has every right to ask why.

Evidently, Hillary has an accountability moment coming,

[The Straight Story]

94. We have three branches of government you know

And 2 of them enabled this war directly. One of those branches clinton holds power in. She holds blames as well.

[Skip Intro]

77. Wow! Hillary should heed the call. n/t

[Independent_Liberal]

97. Yes, she should.

Sheehan is still kicking ass!

[Q]

81. "you don't give someone a blank check...

...and then bitch about how they spend it. If you plead ignorance about George W. Bush and his agenda, then you have no business being a Senator."

I agree with this quote by "Maccagirl".

What the hell did Hillary and other Dems expect after giving someone like Bush a 'blank check' to wage war against any person or country that HE determined needed to be attacked?

Like Byrd said many months ago...our representatives abdicated their responsibilities to the Constitution when they gave Bush that BLANK CHECK to wage war in our name.

[win_in_06]

82. Will Cindy run for office?

Where will she go from here?

[genius]

85. I've heard she has an exploratory committee in CA. Hope she runs.

The California Democrats HATE Feinstein.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

126. She's met some real smart women legislators at Camp Casey

Beck Lourey who is a state Rep in MN,
a Gold Star Mom for Peace. Smart, sassy,
caring.

Coleen Rowley, FBI whistleblower on 9/11 coverups
is running for state congress in MN, also. Very
intelligent.

Cindy is as every bit savvy as any politician I've
met- with only one achilles heel- She says what
she means. How refreshing!!!

I'd vote for her.

[ultraist]

88. Why did she single out Hillary?

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I'm curious as to why she didn't call for ALL Dems to challenge Bush more?

[seafey]

90. I totally agree w/ this.........

All the candidates that ran for president in 2004 were supportive of this war in some way except Kucinich. (And don't try to tell me Dean wasn't one of the nodding heads back when they were putting this war in motion, saying that he believed that bullshit about WMDs... Because he WAS.)

Anyway, in my opinion, for *any* Democrats to NOW come around and say they're against this war is CRAP. It's not a new war, only a new election.

[ultraist]

95. But they can talk a lot about how Bush is mishandling the war

And devise an exit strategy. They cannot take their votes back, but they can move forward.

[win_in_06]

92. She might consider Hillary the likely nominee

or thinks others will follow her lead.

[ultraist]

96. Ah! That very well may be why she singled out Hillary.

Hillary is polling as the top contender. So far...;)

[Nite Owl]

100. She was speaking

in NY therefore Hillary. Hillary is the one wanting to send 90,000 more troops to Iraq.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

128. Because this speech was in New York

[laugle]

89. I'm hoping we can get Cindy to run against Feinstein in 2006,

but I don't care much for threats. Why is she singling out only dems, why not rally against all of the reps.

She is usually very articulate, I hope she isn't going off her rocker.

[eridani]

101. Why not start out with the House of Representatives--

--or the state legislature?

[genius]

102. Imagine the debate, "Your vote killed 2000 Americans, including...

Have you no shame? When will you return to the American people your husband's war profits, which he got off the blood of Americans?"

[Totally Committed]

108. Unfortunately, it isn't just Hillary that voted FOR the IWR...

Every Senator who voted YES, needs to disavow that vote, and apologize to their constituents before they go and "change their position". I am tired of them banging the war drums (even after NO WMD found) and refunding the conflict until some focus group tells them the tide is turning and it is time to "rethink" and "reshape" their opinions to remain poltically or electorally viable. All of a sudden a few are making anti-war noises like they have been that way all along, and we know they have not. DEMAND THEY OWN UP TO THEIR VOTE AND MAKE THEM SAY IT WAS WRONG, or they will do it again the next time some focus group or political faction tells them the way to get elected is to be as tough and war-mongering as the Republicans.

These electeds were the very people who made it possible for the war to be sold to the American people as a bi-partisan effort. I say we do not just let them off the hook. They need to say they were wrong, and they need to say they are sorry. THEN THEY CAN GO ABOUT TRYING TO GET OUR VOTES AGAIN.

That's how I'm feeling today.

TC

[katinmn]

143. She has been rallying agaist Pukes for years now, including

King Puke. That's what Camp Casey was all about!

[NCarolinawoman]

149. Cindy lost me when she came out against the war in Afghanistan.

It diluted her message on Iraq.

[katinmn]

151. We lost in Afghanistan. The Taliban controls the country

except for the capitol.

People are dying there every day too with no end in sight.

[formernaderite]

91. If I wasn't married cindy.....

you make an ex-hippie smile. AND yes...she's completely correct, Ms. Clinton should come out strongly against this war.

But she won't.

[ladylibertee]

104. It's about to be a what? " Girl Fight"

You know,that song.

[leetrisck]

107. Cindy's following the Republican play book now

Bash Hillary - it will get the most attention. She is losing support and I regret that but she's the one doing it and it is a terrible mistake for what she hoped to accomplish - or what I thought she hoped to accomplish. Does she know anymore?

[Q]

109. Just because the corporate media has moved on to other things...

...doesn't mean that she has lost support. I can assure you that the same people that were against the 'war' in Iraq yesterday are still against it today.

It's obvious why Cindy challenged Hillary. She supports Bush's aggressive war and wants to send even MORE troops to kill and die for Bush's lie.

[leetrisck]

112. "Cindy challenged Hillary" - I'm sure Hillary

feels so challenged. Whether Cindy has lost support from those who did support her, I do not know - I simply know she has lost mine and she has gone way off track.

[Q]

132. Cindy is not alone...

...and I'm sure that she won't even notice that YOU don't support her.

Our nation is in a State of Denial. Any Democratic politician that STILL supports Bush's aggressive (and thus, illegal) war against Iraq doesn't deserve our support. Hillary and others may or may not have been 'fooled' into voting to give Bush a blank check to wage war against faceless and nameless enemies...but they've had plenty of time since then to find the truth and act upon it.

[katinmn]

136. she is not alone by a long shot. This weekend,those of us who

share her view that we must get out of Iraq NOW will descend on Washington, DC and we will protest in dozens of cities.

We will stand together and grow stronger. This weekend is a make or break time, folks. It doesn't matter if there is one damn reporter there.

It's time to choose sides and ask yourself:

Are you for the Pukes or are you for the People?

[leetrisck]

137. No, I don't think she will miss me but maybe she should

I've been in her corner all along - but Hillary Clinton is one helluva fighter for the American people and I will vote for her if she runs - Hillary Clinton is hardly an opponent of Cindy. If Cindy wants to go around blaming anyone and everyone for her son's death, then maybe it's time she looks inward and stops placing the blame wherever she gets the most attention. This is all very sad.

[katinmn]

139. Do you know the DLC platform? It's the Republican playbook

word for word.

[katinmn]

138. No, Cindy is not off track. She's right on the mark!

Those that supported her at the beginning when she stood up to Bush, support her now when she stands up to the hyprocrites and the political opportunists.

[katinmn]

135. Playbook? No, that's for the sheeple. She is speaking truth to power,

something very few Americans are ready to do.

So we will suffer the fools for years, perhaps decades more.

People are soooo meek, so weak. They see someone standing up, speaking the truth, and they cower and justify the actions of the very people who beat them down.

Hillary does not speak truth to power.

[Polethebear]

152. I am gonna raise A LOT of heat for myself with this question

but.......



Could Cindy have been "bought off"???



Hear me out,please


Suppose one of Rove's minions contacted her and said "Ok,we'll do this and this.President Bush will do this and do this. Do us a favor and attack the dems that voted for the war,too. We need some help,the president is stinking in the polls because of katrina. We need some firepower and a counterattack and well...they never apologized....they never gave any explanations either cindy,honey. Ya know????"


It's just a thought. If they could use her to as a deflection,a counter attack.


leetrisck's title had me thinking,that's all.

[katinmn]

155. Oh, welcome to DU!

:hi:

Careful with the conspiricy theories. They ban people for the really wild ones.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

158. double the welcome

but I've got even better CT's for you

google Ghost Troop and Captain Eric May

interesting journey... you'll be fine

[Polethebear]

179. Uh,ok

and thanks......

[Q]

169. It's more likely that Hillary...

...is 'bought off' then Cindy.

Cindy is making both sides accountable because...well...both sides ARE responsible for supporting Bush's aggressive war(s).

[CheshireCat]

114. Hillary needs a wake-up call!

She has disappointed many of us who have supported her for years by playing to the right wing on abortion, the Iraqi War and by voting for Bush's cronies submitted for approval to the Congress.

She needs to wakeup and realize that her Democratic base does NOT want Republican-lite.

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. Losing her job to whom?

The Republican who is running against her? :shrug:

[bvar22]

140. Hopefully to a "real" DEMOCRAT

in the Primaries!





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Freddie Stubbs]

144. Who would be foolish enough to run against her in the parimary?

:shrug:

[Blackwater]

117. So, this deranged woman controls New York...?

This is becoming an embarrassment.

[katinmn]

122. Cindy Sheehan has my undying gratitude and support

For those that support Hillary's attempt to move the Dem Party to the Right:

Stop playing politics with peoples' lives!

[jonnyblitz]

125. Hillary has quite the cult of personality following..

she could support Bush on every issue and people would still champion her and hiss at anybody who dare criticize her. she is Lieberman in drag.

[Generator]

134. Bravo!

And I'm gonna say what creeps me out about these followers-it's the same as following Bush or anyone else. IF the person whom you adored for whatever reason starts to become a thing that you don't like do you just put your hands over your ears and say la la la? I don't get it. You may have thought for example, Bill Clinton was the best thing on the planet for eight years but if he's not supporting you today-and supporting what you believe are you going to continue to defend him? I find this loyalty to candidates CREEPY beyond belief.

I also think this country is undergoing a crisis for it's very survival and the same play along to get along politics of is suicide. You either see extreme danger or you see-what? Oh Hilllary is so nice, even though she is totally ineffective at challenging or changing those that threaten my rights? What's the point? Cult of personality indeed.

[klebean]

145. bwahaha - "Lieberman in drag"

erg - makes me shudder, as well.

I would love nothing more than to see a woman elected POTUS,
however more than that, I prefer that someone occupying the Oval office
is beholden to no one except We the People; unfortunately, I don't know how
anyone attains electablity without being a puppet to some self-serving entity..

Posters who are embarrassed by Cindy's calling out of Hillary have missed
entirely the essence of what has made Cindy so effective so far. She speaks
her mind and does not mince words, a right of every American, but yet
few have the fortitude to make that opportunity happen. Cindy has a "bullhorn"
now and if she did not use it at every opportunity to force the issue "what is
the noble cause - for what purpose do you want to send more troops to Iraq,
Hillary?" then I would be disappointed.

Cindy has my utmost admiration.

[tabasco]

130. How many more of these have to come home before people ...

understand we have to GET OUT NOW !!


ANYBODY OPPOSED TO IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL NEEDS TO GET THEIR ASSES TO THE RECRUITER'S OFFICE.

[frictionlessO]

133. Glad to see so many on this thread only support Cindy as long

as she doesn't point a finger at a dem.

Glad to see the fairweatherness of your "support".

Glad to see that so many like the neocon repukes they supposedly abhor put party over compassion. Put party over life itself. Put party over it all...

I don't want your support for Cindy, you're poison for anything that doesn't completely adhere to your political agenda.

Guess what I will vote for Hill again as well. Why? Because unlike you trash talking johnny go quicklies I am empathetic enough to realize that sometimes there are compromises to be made and sometimes there aren't.

In the international scene there is nothing more important than Iraq.
Everyone the world over wants us out of Iraq. Things will just keep on detoriating over there as long as we are there. This is what us 10% types have been saying all along and the hundreds of millions of us the world over who were right and have continued to be right continue to be insulted by the likes of you all who were so very detrimentally wrong.

Clintons "critiques" of the war are softball and because of it continues support for the outrageous debacle, we've lost soooo much support in the eyes of the world that they no longer just despise our administration they despise us... the people!

So yeah lets keep the troops there, lets send more because that always worked in the past right? There is no way that Iraq is going to get better until we leave.

...and heres what it will take...
another 500 billion to a trillion dollars. Don't like it? Tough! Its not your country that has been raped and exploited in the most extreme and obscene ways over the last 25 years.

Pan Arab coalition plus limited UN involvement (there are still many PO'd Iraqis over the sanctions). This coalition must have neutral countries running multiple oversight commitees on everything from food and wealth distribution to health and education infrastructure.

We will have to pay mucho billions for that, consider it hiring mercs like torture freaks Blackwater (the real ones behind Abu Ghraib and Bagrahm and all our "detention facilities"), only there would be actual oversight and warcrimes tribunals for the heartless who insist on using such techniques.

Next, reparations: probably about a million to each family (thats what we gave our 9/11 families) will calm some feelings and help them get things back together in regards to housing, health, and education. How such monies get dispersed is something much smarter people than me can figure out as long as they are Iraqis.

Finally... war crimes tribunals, you all know who for and you know why. This is the only way we can gain any kind of respect back from the world and actually start disarming terrorists. You take away their cause you take away their numbers. It is the quickest and most effective way to show that we do care about the world and not just our own oil ego driven fat ass pride sitting in the great donut of this Camelot called America. That in turn begins to take away the recruitment possibilities that will continue to inflame and enlarge AQ as long as we are there.

What about the civil division? What about the Kurds and Sunnis and Shia.. I don't know... but I do know that without us there AQ in Iraq will not last long at all (Al Sadr and the Mehdi army wont stand for it), Sunni assertions for complete control of Iraq will never happen and the bulk of them know it but they will fight foreign occupiers who rape murder abuse and steal. Moqtada is held thinly in check by Sistani... and he is going to make a power play sooner or later. AQ in Iraq can be set up as the target of that power play if we are no longer there.

As for Iraq splintering into three different sub countries.. well hell if it stops a civil war it might be a good thing as long as the oil was monitored, and distributed accordingly. As long as the tiny port system was still open to use for all three territories. As long as Turkey abides an independant Kurdistan. All of this is possible with enough money and monitoring. Also a ton of political know how that is completely lacking in our government.

Sending more troops and staying means no sollutions, no end game, no peace. More people die in the long run just so we can save some face that was lost before the crime was even committed.

Hillary knows this as does every friggin politico in the country, the only people who dont are die hard support any dem at any cost type voters and their repuke counterparts.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

157. My heart just swoons when you let it all out!

:loveya:

do it again

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

156. "It's up to YOU, New York, New York!"

da da da da da
da da da da da

[Goldensilence]

159. this is truely pathetic

...you guys are supposed to be supporters of DEMOCRACY not just democrats.

Nice to know that one day someone so loved and vaunted by your ranks as a champion of the people. The next day when she , in some minds, makes a questionable move, some of you fall by the wayside. So pathetic.

Personally I think she did the right thing calling out hilary. Name a more visable democrat then her.This isn't about right or wrong right now...it's about reform. Needed reform in the democratic party. You guys have been snivelling since Bush stole the first election yes i said stole. But all you've done since then is bicker amongst yourselves. No solidarity at all...all you've bene busy doing is hating bush without finding away to get ANYTHING done. What's more a of a shame is the repeated splintering within your ranks. You know evil as the republicans are they are united in that at least. The last election was REALLY i mean REALLY sorry by Kerry. An actual chimp could've run with campaign that was was decently run. Instead of really concentrating on what would have bene SOO i mean SO easy to blast bush on. Domestic Agenda. Two words that's it.

Instead he was so fucking busy trying to look like a lil soldier boy who knew mor eabout handling the war on terrorism then Bush did. He was trying to out-bush Bush and that's just not going to happen. I liked Dean and Clarke and personally that Iowa "rant" he made ....it was refreshing to see someone have that much passion about anything in DC.

You know what keep bickering amongnst yourselves.....the more you do the more the people become tired with BOTH parties. That's when we'll see true change.

Revolution please

[LittleClarkie]

194. Then again, she ain't Mahatma Sheehan

Nor is she the Pope. Not infallable. I appreciate what she's done. That doesn't make her golden, necessarily, in everything she does.

[npincus]

178. I stand with Cindy

these milquetoast Democrats do no represent me.

enough of this shit. If they want my vote, they'd better stop the bullshit, and get real about this tragic mistake and speak WITHDRAWAL.

[OzarkDem]

186. Has Sen. Clinton met with Cindy yet?

Has any Dem leader in Congress met with Cindy?

[AX10]

187. Clark has a plan to stabilize Iraq.

Clark is not on the same page of Hillary ever was.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[confludemocrat]

197. Has anyone said "smoke 'em out" yet? Anyway, smoke 'em out Cindy!!!!!!!!

get them out in the open where we can pummel them good. What a lame sidestepping by Hillary, that Sotty Dog McClellan would be proud of.

Not just Bush can use that term.

[Q]

201. Sheehan...like millions of other Americans...

...simply want the TRUTH.

Bring 'critical' of Bush's war of aggression is not enough. Hillary and other Dem leaders must tell the truth or risk a repeat of 2000 and 2004....a divided party and vote.

[democracy1st]

203. Loves it

Only fools will keep responding to DLC.

[paineinthearse]

204. Draft Sheehan for Senate.

Senator Sheehan, doesn't that sound a hell of a lot better than Senator Dinostein?

[radio4progressives]

213. Yep! Cindy Sheehan as U.S. Senator from Northern California! Yep!

no more Dinosteins in office! yep i like it.. :applause:

[AtomicKitten]

205. I think Cindy Sheehan needs to stick to her message.

She was never more effective than sitting in her chair outside the Dirt WH in Crawford. Her belligerence makes her less sympathetic. I'm a big fan of less is more.

[karynnj]

206. Well said

[Q]

208. Sheehan's message has never changed...

...it's just that you and a few others don't like it when the message is aimed at Democrats.

There were no complaints as long as Cindy was aiming her 'get out of Iraq' message at Bush. But now that she is expanding her message to include politicians that are enabling Bush's illegal war(s)...the apologists are coming out of the woodwork.

Bush would have a very tough time selling an illegal, unprovoked, aggressive war on Iraq if he didn't have such support from prominent Democrats like Clinton.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

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

[Oakland]

207. Thank You Cindy

Obama defends Leahy's yes vote on Roberts, Kerry almost conceded before it was over, Biden publicly stabs Dean in the back, Hillary is playing to the middle because they are apparently more important to her and the rest of the DINOs then their freakin base. It is so refreshing when someone actually puts forth their real opinions and positions. Go Cindy - lets take our party back so we can take our country back.

[AtomicKitten]

211. Pssssst.

The Democratic Party is truly a big tent, and you need to understand that we have different opinions on issues. Your expectation that we should fall into lockstep and that congress-folk should vote the same way reeks of, well, Republicanism. It's the you're either with us or with the enemy mentality that erodes the solidarity of the Democratic Party. I celebrate diversity of opinion. We can disagree with others without seeking to exclude them from the clubhouse.

[welshTerrier2]

212. sorry ... that won't fly anymore ...

well, i tell you what i think "reeks of, well, Republicanism" ... i think voting more funds for bush's "republican" war reeks of republicanism ...

i do not intend to be pressured and chastised by loyal Democrats to be part of their "big tent" when doing so includes accepting Democrats who vote for more occupation, more US imperialism, more corporate exploitation by Big Oil and a failure to represent the majority view that is calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq ... if that's the big tent you're inviting me into, all i'll say is "no thanks" ...

you see this as "eroding the solidarity of the Democratic Party?" ... i see continued support for barbaric republican policies as destroying our party's solidarity ... if Democrats ever want to become the majority party again, they damned well better start representing the majority view ...

[AtomicKitten]

214. well, just jump right in there, why doncha

First of all, I wasn't addressing my comments to you. Secondly, I was responding to someone attempting to tell ME like it is.

Most folks are aware that votes in congress are not nearly as simplistic as they are construed by those demanding 100% compliance to their idea of nirvana. It's a tough job deciding the course of America and I, for one, prefer congresspeople to consult their constituents and vote their conscience.

I have no intention of pressuring or chastising anyone. I'm merely suggesting that we make an effort to grow up and have a better understanding of process and strategy.

And, finally, don't presume to pigeon hole me or my politics. Nothing in life is black and white. And neither is politics. Life proceeds more smoothly with a more zen view of the flow of things. That's how major change will occur, not by step-by-step, rigid parameters as you seem to want to impose.

Peace out.

[welshTerrier2]

215. well OK ... here ya go ...

you wrote: "well, just jump right in there, why doncha" ... let me give you a hint: if you didn't want others to participate, respond via PM ... you posted your comment in a public forum and any DU'er has every right to respond ...

you also wrote: "And, finally, don't presume to pigeon hole me or my politics." ... i did not "presume to pigeon hole" anything ... i responded directly to what you wrote ... you made it very clear in your earlier post that you "celebrate diversity of opinion" in the Party ... it is hardly "presuming to pigeon hole you" when i responded directly to a statement you made ... whether you disagree with me or not, what could be a more direct response than to say that i don't share your view of "celebrating diversity" when it comes to supporting bush's war in Iraq ... Hillary Clinton has called for MORE TROOPS ... and the DLC calls those opposing the war "un-American" ... no sir, this is not the kind of celebration of diversity i'm willing to tolerate ...

i noticed you didn't respond to the following exchange ... you wrote in an earlier post: "Your expectation that we should fall into lockstep and that congress-folk should vote the same way reeks of, well, Republicanism." ... i responded to this saying: "well, i tell you what i think 'reeks of, well, Republicanism' ... i think voting more funds for bush's 'republican' war reeks of republicanism ..."

and as for "zen views" of things and rigid parameters ... while you're busy with your "zen view of the flow of things", people are dying ... innocent people are dying ... when i marched last year in Boston, i marched with about 10 people from a local zen monastery ... there is nothing zen-like about Hillary's call for more troops and there is nothing zen-like about 2000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis ...

it is time to stop the madness in Iraq ... and it is time to stop anyone, Democrat or republican, who gets in the way of doing that ... pretty words about harmony and solidarity in the Party are bullshit ... join us or we will fight you ... from now on, i'm putting issues ahead of Party ... i will support progressive Democrats first, and, if none is running, progressives of other parties ... i will never again work for, fund or vote for those who do not represent my views ... if you want Party unity, fight to end the war ...

Peace NOW ...

[Moderator]

216. Locking

This thread has run it's course