Betrayed! -Cindy Sheehan

[helderheid]

Betrayed! How the Democratic Congress betrayed American voters, the troops in Iraq and extended the occupation for at least another 18 months.

March 25th, 2007



Cindy Sheehan


By Cindy Sheehan
Gold Star Families for Peace

03/24/07 “ICH” — – THE DEMOCRATS ARE FUNDING IRAQ ESCALATION: The Democratic leadership has proposed $100 billion of supplemental funding for an increased troop presence in Iraq. The leadership opted for the “slow bleed” policy over a month ago. This extends the occupation for at least another 18 months, and allows permanent placement of troops thereafter for “training” or “combating terrorism”. It also will permit the Bush Administration to initiate a war with Iran without Congressional oversight. The surge of 20,000 troops recently increased to 30,000 and will likely increase to 100,000 by year-end. Will the hapless Democrats then claim, “If only I knew then what I know now” as they have for the past year?

The “slow bleed” policy has some toothless requirements for presidential assertions of progress like those we’ve heard for the past four years from the Administration; these reporting requirements allow “slow bleed” proponents to make the preposterous claim they are “ending the war” by funding it. Amendments that would require withdrawal of US forces this year, the policy overwhelming favored by Americans, and the troops themselves, are not even being allowed for a vote by the leadership! The shameless short-term purpose of the Democratic policy is to embarrass Republicans with a Senate filibuster of the supplemental, or a presidential veto, and the longer-term aim is to help Democrats in the 2008 election by saddling the Republicans with intervention in an untenable civil war.

In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House. The Democrats 2007 policy is equally political, and may have the paradoxical effect of producing Republican victories in 2008. The prolongation of the occupation is now opposed by two-thirds of all Americans; we want our troops safely home by this Christmas, not political chicanery. As a consequence Americans now think even more poorly of Congress than ever; the failure to withdraw from Iraq dropped Democratic support of Congress from 44% to 33% according to the latest Gallup poll. The Democrats failure to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections.

MUCH MORE (with links):

http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1028

[stirlingsliver]

1. Truth To Power

Keep speaking the Truth, Cindy -- Truth to Power, No Matter WHO the POWER is.

[saracat]

44. I am a former Cindy supporter. I marched with her side by side.

I am disgusted with her stupidity. She seems to be in cahoots with the GOP. Her brain cells must not be working. She hasn't got the faintist clue how to end this war or what it takes. She has become a media whore who does not care who she destroys. The fact that she lost her son does NOT give her the right to be stupid and destroy all we have acheived through her absolute ignorance of the process.Cindy needs to educate herself instead of attacking her allies.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

60. I can send you a picture. I do NOT claim I know Cindy well. I marched with her and met her in AZ.

I used to admire her. I no longer do so. I could send you pictures but they don't mean anything but that I met her and marched.So what?

The one who is crass , stupid and malicious is Cindy with her current statements, not me.She is attacking the only party that is attempting to end the war. That sickens me.She would also, through her actions deprive wonded vets of the money needed for their care and the ability tyo end the situation at Walter Reed but she doesn't even read that which she protests.

I am proud of my party.I am proud to be a Democrat and if Cindy wants to attack the party , she had better besubstative and actually know about which she speaks.She should read the legislation she protests and stop stabbing her allies in the back.

[shance]

116. "The only party attempting to end the war?" Which party would that be Sara?

Were you by chance sleeping through the last boondoggle of 124 billion going to fund more Halliburton suites, create more killing machines which they will most likely bring back here and use against us the American citizens, murder more innocent families and watch as yet more blood stops up the sewers in the defeated Iraqi towns, fund and ignite more wars so the war profiteers will own us all eventually?

Because that is what has just been funded in your name and in my name.

Let me ask you.

Have you lost a son to an illegal war Sara?

Have you lost a daughter to a war?

Have you stayed up night after night, like Cindy and other parents have, feeling utterly powerless, consumed with fear, doubt, living every moment with the possibility your son might in fact be killed today, or tomorrow, or the next day. Have you had to try your best to block it out of your mind but your whole day and night are constantly driven by the fear eating at every present moment you live?

Have you ever gotten "the phone call" that every parent lives in dread of receiving?

Have you lost a child in a war manufactured by totally intentional lies and then watch as the Democratic Congress along with Republicans which we know would engage in such behavior further enable Bush and Cheney's war by delivering him a check of OUR TAXPAYER money for his war - ie the Iraqi "resolution" I believe is what they called it?

Have you known what its like to live with the knowledge that your child died for no reason other than other draft dodgers could make more fucking money than they already have?

Have you stayed up all night second guessing yourself, how you raised your child, what you did right, what you did wrong, how you might have prevented them from enlisting when they had already made up their mind they were going?

Do you have any idea what parents of these kids go through?

I don't think you do.

If you did, I doubt you would be as self-righteous as you are.

Have you given your life to stopping this war?

Cindy has.

And yet you attack her.

What does that say about you?

I often wonder if individuals who criticize those doing the right thing actually envy courage like Cindy's and their strength?

It's your choice Sara to accuse and attack someone like Cindy Sheehan. It's also your choice to believe those who are betraying your best interest.

However, as in everything it says much more about you than it ever could about Cindy Sheehan.

[earth mom]

121. Couldn't agree with you more! The Cindy haters are DINOs no doubt about it!

:puke:

[cali]

125. I don't hate her. I pity her. I resent that she's fast and loose with

facts. I think comparing Move-on leadership to Cheney is objectionable. I think this screed is pathetic and counter-productive, but I certainly don't hate her. I am, in fact, grateful to her for focusing the nation on the horrors of this war. But that was years ago, and in the time since, she's become increasingly detrimental to the cause she cares so much about. Sad, really.

But go ahead, call me a DINO, and call all the other progressives DINOS if that's what you need to do. It's simply name calling. I've survived far worse.

[uppityperson]

188. delete, responded to wrong person. Sorry.

thanks for not name calling. Criticizing everyone and anyone is ok. Name calling isn't.

[ProudDad]

287. So, I guess it's time for Cindy

Sheehan to go slink back to the kitchen "where she belongs", eh?

[EFerrari]

298. What is the matter with people.

Aren't we smart enough to notice, yes, the Democrats got a needed political victory and yes, the occupation rolls on?

Okay, I may need to go chew something.

[saracat]

126. So I , who am a lifelong Dem, a Vietnam War protester, an Iraq War protester

and an Democratic Party officer am a DINO? I guess I have just been "Obeyed!" And Cindy can't be criticized because she lost her son? And I have NO right to criticize her because I haven't lost a son? Is that correct? Using your logic Freepers who have lost a son and support the war , and there are some ought to be praised and elevated as well.
Cindy has made herself a public figure and is subject to scrutiny.I do not HATE Cindy. I think she is ill imformed and I think her attacking of the Democratic Party is disgusting.I believe in constructive criticism.The Party is not above reproach but she does not even understand those things which she attacks.
As far as the verbiage you are spweing, does it even cross your mind thazt we do NOT have a super majority in either chamber? And because of that things most be done differently? I also suppose it doesn't occur to you that different folks may have differeing oppinions, some based on facts, as to how to end the war?
We are ALL against the war.It is the HOW to end it that is dividing us.Cindy's loos in no weay qualifies her to be able to effect the most responsible and quick end to thias diasaster!

[earth mom]

143. The time for playing politics is OVER. The dems are playing with people lives!

THE BLOOD OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IS ON THEIR HANDS.

The Dems in office are NOT doing the bidding of the people but rather their corporate masters but you say that we are supposed to "constructively criticize" them for that?!

:wtf:

Hell No, I don't think so! The Dems need their feet held to the fire NOW. Not because Cindy lost a child but because of the thousands and thousands of lives lost and the thousands more to come. Don't you realize that the direction the war is going, we are ALL vulnerable because the U.S. government does NOT value the lives of it's people?! If you want to talk about spewing B.S., look no further than your posts defending a government that gives not a damn for it's people-meaning the Dems AND the Rethugs alike in Washington D.C.!

[proud2BlibKansan]

145. Funding the war is not going to end it

I am not going to call you a DINO because I have encountered other Dems who think like you do. It's a big tent. I also don't want to fight with you about Cindy because she is NOT a Dem and your loyalty obviously lies with the party rather than with the cause.

I just want to point out that if you REALLY oppose the war, you can't support funding it.

A line has been drawn in the sand. Cindy and I are on the side that is working to end the war NOW. Not in 18 months.

[saracat]

149. Good for you.But I don't see how you are going to accomplish it.

I don't see a plan, not to I see an ability on her side to work with the people who could end it.She is begginning to sound like the Ann Coulter of the left! I want the war to end now too but I want to see a plan to do that!
And I would refuse to support any defunding of the soldiers and the military hospitals. That is supporting the troops.They don't just click their heels 3 times and get home like Dorothy.I don't want them blown up and abandoned just so it can be said we defunded the war! And BTW, the war sxzhould be declared illegal.That is partially what this is about and we wouldn't have to defend something that can't exist!

[proud2BlibKansan]

153. It's called lobbying

Cindy does it, Code Pink does it, Vets for Peace do it. There are many more organizations on the peace train. It is a full time job for many in the peace movement. I have 2 friends who have personally visited all 500+ members of Congress.

The troops are not in danger of being abandoned. Good grief, Cheney said literally the same thing yesterday!

[saracat]

155. I actually don't find what Cindy does or what Code Pink does

"lobbying'. And I have lots of friends in Code Pink and was originally a member. Lobbying is taling to your Reps and presuading them to your point of view rationally. This is NOT lobbying.This is a public display of idiocy.Enough already.
I meet with my reps and others to try and understand what they are doing and to push then for results.Insulting and badgering them doesn't work on either side! And neither Cidy or Code Pink are remotely concerned with a "plan".They offer NO solutions.

[proud2BlibKansan]

170. You don't appear to know what lobbying is.

Yes they have a plan, yes they are lobbying. And they understand that the reps work FOR US, not the other way around. You meet with your reps to understand what they are doing while Cindy and her peace community meets with reps to tell them what they want. You are getting an education, peace activists are lobbying. They are clearly not the idiots here.

[saracat]

187. If I do not understand what they are doing I can't persuade them to do otherwise!

As I have been a "lobbyist" for several causes and am a registered citizen lobbyist in my state I most certainly do know what a lobbyist does. And BTW, you say they have a plan? What is it ? No one seems to know!
Your answer is a perfect illustration of the ridiculousness of the Code /Pink Cindy strategy. They meet with Reps to "Tell them what they want'. Thats nice. I 2want a ne w car.Can they get me that too? Sheesh.Maybe if they worked "together" with the Reps to find a solution instead of "telling" them what to do and expecting them to magically deliver it like Santa we could make some progress! So what is this great plan?Or is it a secret?

[proud2BlibKansan]

279. Elected officials work for us

Since you have such vast experience lobbying, seems like you would know that. :eyes:

So yes, we DO get to tell them what we want. Especially the ones we voted for, and supported, and donated money to, and made phone calls for, and helped win them their elections. The peace community was VERY active in the November 2006 elections. Now we are VERY active lobbying those same Dems we worked so hard for.

BTW, the plan is

Ending the damn war

[cali]

202. LOL!

She must be the most ineffective lobbyist ever. And guess what, Cindy isn't their only constituent. She stinks at what she does.

[proud2BlibKansan]

257. 2/3 of America wants our troops out of Iraq

Cindy is not alone.

[ProudDad]

292. YOU don't appear to know what lobbying is

The way it's done now is the lobby with the most money WINS!

The only way to fight those odds is to cause discomfort.

I would fill every goddamn office in the Capital Building and environs with quiet, peaceful, relentless anti-war protesters EVERY FUCKING DAY until the machinery of that place grinds to a halt.

I SURE AS HELL wouldn't diss anyone who's actually doing something pro-active to end this bloody war..

[MrMickeysMom]

364. Well I do

Code Pink or anyone who is "in the face" IMO is a catalist for change. It doesn't have to come in the flavor "DC tripper" or 'Lobbyist". There are just some public figures who call attention to converstation. I belive without those people in history, we would make even SLOWer process than we already DO!

Anyway you look at it, we need more of "them" whoever "they" are and whatever roll "they" play. This is the obstacle. :dilemma:

[uppityperson]

190. This is crticism? Seems like name calling to me.

"I am disgusted with her stupidity. She seems to be in cahoots with the GOP. Her brain cells must not be working. She hasn't got the faintist clue how to end this war or what it takes. She has become a media whore who does not care who she destroys."

[ProudDad]

290. She has the right to criticize the Dems

for continuing to support bush's war.


Amazing how thin skinned you are after your measured response to Cindy Sheehan:

"I am disgusted with her stupidity. She seems to be in cahoots with the GOP. Her brain cells must not be working. She hasn't got the faintist clue how to end this war or what it takes. She has become a media whore who does not care who she destroys. The fact that she lost her son does NOT give her the right to be stupid and destroy all we have acheived through her absolute ignorance of the process.Cindy needs to educate herself instead of attacking her allies."

You've called her stupid, in cahoots with the fucks who killed her kid, brain dead, clueless, media whore, stupid (again), ignorant, and in need of education.

Sounds like all those long hours listening to rush limpballs are paying off for ya' :eyes:

[boilerbabe]

280. You, go, Hunny!! N/T

[NotGivingUp]

365. Very well said. I agree with you 100%.

[ends_dont_justify]

368. Do you?

Just because you support cindy doesn't mean you live her battles with her. The democrats did something other than rolling over....with persuasive comments and praise for good doing we can win this battle. This only proves people simply like to disagree and most couldn't give two shits over the war.

[proud2BlibKansan]

141. My favorite Cindy quote seems appropriate here

"Why should we support Democrats who support the war, just because they aren't Republicans who support the war?"

[orleans]

286. that is one great quote! n/t

[ProudDad]

294. And for our nuance-challenged friends

I'm sure Cindy meant, "Boot out the pro-war Dems and replace them with Anti-war Dems in '08"

[Divine Discontent]

270. are you left handed?

just an honest non-tricky question?

[proud2BlibKansan]

142. I agree

This is no friend of Cindy's. :eyes:

[MaggieSwanson]

52. Don't you think that

the anti-war movement has a better chance with Dems than the neocons? If we don't let our own know how we feel, how can we expect change?

That's my take. I'm not trying to criticize how you feel, I only want you to see a different perspective.

Peace,

Maggie

[yurbud]

129. Even if you think Dems are doing the right thing now, you mistake our role in process

Our job is not to lobby for every faint gesture in the right direction, but to demand that congress do what is actually right in unambiguous terms.

If this is the best they can do now because of corporatist democrats, we should put the fear of god in the corporatist, not kiss the pig that Nancy Pelosi had to put the lipstick on.

[EFerrari]

278. What kind of narrow minded arrogance would generate

such an unforgivable insult.

You got your political victory. That had nothing to do with ending this illegal occupation. Borrow or buy a clue and hope that in the future, when Sheehan is hailed as a driving force that ended this debacle, your post will have faded into internet obscurity.

[ComerPerro]

366. no argument from me.

[Xenotime]

2. Cindy is a true american

[MaggieSwanson]

3. Deja vu

Will the hapless Democrats then claim, “If only I knew then what I know now” as they have for the past year? says it all.

And the response from some Dems in defense of the "yes" vote sounds remarkably like the one I heard after the IWR vote.

[ClayZ]

27. NO MORE WAR!

Anything less is still CRIMINAL!

[ClayZ]

54. Lt. Ehren Watada on Citizen Responsibility Feb 3rd 2007

Watch this video!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x15717

[pberq]

345. Yes! There is no excuse for continuing to fund this debacle

A "political victory" is hollow when we are talking about the prospect of many, many more unnecessary deaths.

[cali]

4. It certainly is easy to issue blistering criticism when

you don't have to deal with the reality of a diverse dem caucus, and support legislation that would never even make it to the House floor. Sorry Cindy, I admire your passion for ending the war, my heart aches for the loss you suffered of your beloved son, but this kind of rhetoric is neither truthful nor helpful when it comes to ending the war.

[lonestarnot]

12. You are against every instance of proposals that claim peace as their objective

that I have seen so far this morning. The old political "won't make it out of committee" arguement stinks, as all the politicians have to do is what they were elected to do and do it now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Good call

This is not about politics and chances for re-election. It is about DEATH and war and a shameless invasion of an innocent country.

END THE DAMN WAR

[cali]

133. Wrong. The Political Structure is the ONLY way to end this war.

And it certainly shouldn't be about elections, but the reality is that that factors in as well. What it's not about is the empty rhetoric so many here are fond of spewing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

150. And we are lobbying as part of that political structure

I'm sorry you don't see that.

[cali]

152. You don't do it by lying and alientating allies and

potential allies in positions to effect change. You don't do it by calling them war mongers, or completely blaming bush's war on democrats. In her whole entire screed, she doesn't even mention republicans.

It's counterproductive. She's not effective, and neither or those of you who endorse the words in the missive posted.

I'm sorry you can't see that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

154. What lie?

Please oh wise one, tell me how Cindy has lied?

Next show me where she completely blamed bush's war on Democrats.

[cali]

165. see post 122

I'm sure you'll find some way to defend her and deny the obvious.

[proud2BlibKansan]

173. oops wrong post

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[cali]

56. Yawn.

Just like bush, repeating the same old lies, doesn't make them any truer. Show me one damn poll that backs up your claim that the majority of Americans want the dems to bring home the troops right now. Again, the evidence through polling is that Americans are split on how to end the war. And who the fuck are you to say I'm against peace? I want the war to end yesterday. I never supported it. I'm on record here repeatedly damning it, and criticizing dems who voted for the IWR. So screw your putting words in my mouth and saying I'm against peace. You know what people who do that shit are, don't you?

[lonestarnot]

80. You are circularly arguing the point of my post and trying but not

successfully doing the name calling thing. Why don't you zip it. Your attempts at marginalizing peace are thus far unsuccessful.

[ProudDad]

299. Ok, here are two of them

"Do you favor or oppose congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?"

3/14-15/07
Favor Oppose Unsure
59%-----34%-----7%


3/14-15/07
". . . Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
27%--------69%----------4%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

=============================

Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

=============================

THESE are the voices the Dems in Congress should be listening to -- not the pork and perks crowd...

[Leopolds Ghost]

338. Cali, should the Dems have supported Nixon's "Peace with Honor" approach?

It was very popular among Americans whose pride was wounded by the Vietnam debacle. Just like the soldiers interviewed in "Iraq War Diary", they refuse to accept that American soldiers died for reasons that are anything less than good and noble and therefore the war must be concluded "safely" (for us, not the Iraqis) and "honorably" (put lipstick on an illegal pig).

If the Dems had adopted your approach they would have gotten 48% of the vote in 1972 instead of a blowout -- and nobody would ever falsely paint Dems as antiwar liberals ever again! Right? :eyes:

[cali]

344. It took 3 years and over thirty attempts

at passing legislation before the Vietnam war was defunded. Sorry, that's just fact.

As far as Nixon's "peace with honor" thingie, I'd have to no more about it- though I doubt I'd have supported anything that Nixon put forth re the Vietnam War.

Under our system of government, wars, once the legislative branch, hands over the power to the exec branch, are difficult to stop. There's not one "decider" in Congress; there's 535.

Sorry reality is not to your liking.

[proud2BlibKansan]

357. Sorry history is not your best subject

Read up on Nixon and the Vietnam War and get back to us.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[cali]

20. It's called reality. I don't like it either a lot of the time, but

it's pretty inescapable. And I understand about the fucks. No problem, but just as I make you sick, it makes me sick to see people stamp their foot and throw a tantrum in the face of reality, and it makes me really sick to see people trying to pin the war on the dems. This is bushco's war, and arguable the war of dems who voted for the IWR. It is not Pelosi's war. It is not Ted Kennedy's war. It is not David Obey's war. It is not the war of the majority of Progressives who voted for the Supplemental.

[Marrah_G]

75. Why don't you click your heels 3 times and wish them home

It worked for Dorothy and it might work for you too!

[ruggerson]

17. Of course you're right

but the Chavez caucus here won't see it that way.

[tomp]

349. i'm not offended by being referred to as the chavez caucus...

...but some might be and it was clearly intended as an insult and is totally irrelevant...so knock it off.

[immoderate]

39. I'm with you on this.

I've always supported Cindy, and given her credit for establishing the turning point for popular sentiment about the war. But some of these remarks are not productive (credible.) I don't think the Dems voted for the war to give Bush "enough rope." Rather, the worst of them were executing a CYA maneuver for political purposes, however misguided that might have been.

Maybe Cindy is doing what she thinks is best for her crusade, but I think she is making an error in casting all the Dems in the "war criminal' mold. I don't agree necessarily with the Democratic tactics, but I also don't deny the practicalities of the politics.

(Private note, Cali: I don't know if you saw this before, but this is sea ape responding to proud moonbat :) )

[cali]

66. Oh, sea ape, how I miss being outraged over at Scrutator

It was so much fun! Particularly Jennifer who was brilliant and GOP4me who was brilliant in another, more insidious way.

[immoderate]

85. Those were the days!

As over the top as those folks were, GOP4me sounded like some people who really were serious. I particularly miss my jousts with Keefer, who was devastated by the ultimate revelations.

--IMM

[Leopolds Ghost]

336. Why not support bill they'd enact if they had 100% control, instead of bill they know Bush'll veto?

Isn't that more pragmatic, all things being equal, either bill would fail,

since they don't understand how to play chicken and Bush does?

[Toots]

5. My sentiments exactly. They are bordering on losing my vote

When - oh - when will they try and prove Nader wrong. Please prove there is a difference between the Parties... Please...

[ClayZ]

89. There is wrong, and wronger than wrong!

Asimov's axiom, well stated in his book The Relativity of Wrong (Doubleday, 1988): "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

[Garbo 2004]

123. I would think Nader had already been proved to be wrong. Unless you think Gore would have

invaded Iraq, claimed "unitary executive" supreme authority and subverted the Constitution, among other things.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Fuck off, Cindy.

[stirlingsliver]

8. Nice Thing To Say To Someone Who Lost Her Son

What a nice thing to say to this wonderful lady who loast her son in this illegal, immoral, and totally unneccessary war.

Real class.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[cali]

16. Disgusting.

Sheehan is passionate about ending the war. I disagree strongly with what she wrote, but your comment is both ugly and cruel.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[buddhamama]

53. edit.

[ruggerson]

35. It shouldn't be deleted

He is expressing an opinion (albeit in a rather crude fashion) about a public figure.

Now if you told him the same thing, it would be deleted because it's against DU rules.

[helderheid]

38. Good lord.

:eyes: :puke:

[LaurenG]

63. edit

[helderheid]

64. I thought Cindy had an account here - am I mistaken?

[proud2BlibKansan]

148. She did at one time

but I don't know if she posts much. She really doesn't have to. She has a lot of supporters and personal friends here. We have her back.

She does read DU though. :hug: Hi Cindy! Love you!!

[az chela]

232. Cindy does not belong to DU

But lots of her posts get put on her!!!!!!!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

259. Hey you!!

Wondered if you would wander into this mess. :hi:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[stirlingsliver]

41. Leave It Up -- So That Everyone Can See

Leave it up, so that everyone can see the vile stuff that true patriots like Cindy have to endure.

Leave it up, so that others can comment on how disgusting it is.

Leave it up, so that all can see how some little minds attack peoplle like Cindy who have lost sons in this terrible, illegal, and immoral war.

[az chela]

233. Thank you for thinking outside the box!!!!

[deutsey]

37. Yeah! Always speaking from your conscience and stuff...

There's no place for that in American politics, so just shut the fuck up.

:sarcasm:

[ruggerson]

45. He didn't tell her to shut the fuck up

he told her to fuck off.

[stirlingsliver]

61. As If THAT Made a Difference

As if it really makes any difference whether someone tells another person to "fuck off" or to "shut the fuck up".

In both cases, the comment is directed at the person -- not at the person's ideas.

If someone were to say, "That is a really fucked up idea" -- OK.

But there really is not too much difference between saying "fuck off" and "shut the fuck up".

[ruggerson]

67. Sure there's a difference

If you tell someone "shut the fuck up," you're expressing a desire to try to silence them.

If you tell someone "fuck off," you're expressing your vehement disagreement and/or anger with something they've just said or done.

[stirlingsliver]

70. So YOU Say

When someone tells me to "fuck off", I think they are telling me to go away -- to leave -- to be quiet.

Saying "fuck off" to someone else is not exactly a way to encourage dialogue.

It is much more like a very aggressive way of ending the conversation.

It's much the same thing as saying "shut the fuck up".

Both a means of trying to silence the other person without addressing the other person's ideas.

Both show a lack of either courage or ideas.

[deutsey]

74. Just tell the poster to fuck off...it just means you disagree with him/her

:evilgrin:

[stirlingsliver]

76. I Disagree With You

Isn't that better than saying "Fuck Off"?

[ruggerson]

81. Yes, normally it is

I agree with you that he was a bit over the top in his language.

[ruggerson]

79. I can't speak for the poster

but I doubt he cares to have a dialogue with her. He DISAGREES with her, he finds her to be destructive to the Democratic party.

But he's not trying to silence her voice. He's just expressing his opinion, just like she did.

Does he not have that right? (And, btw, I'm not defending his crudeness, just the message behind it.)

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[ruggerson]

72. Nah, I get your point

only he wasn't trying to silence her. He was expressing revulsion at her remarks, IOW disagreeing with her. Crudely, I might add.

So, he doesn't have the right to vehemently disagree with what she wrote?

[deutsey]

84. For me, when I hear "fuck off" I take it to mean "shut up" "go away" etc.

If I disagree with someone and want to put it crudely, I say: "Bullshit."

I think these phrases are used to imply the meanings I assign them...still, all this semantic hair-spliting is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. My point was that Sheehan has the right to speak from her conscience. Anyone can (and will) say "bullshit" or "fuck off." The former, however, is a different kind of vulgar rebuttal than the latter, imo.

[jonnyblitz]

58. you're a class act, Andy Lewis, One of PSU's finest!!!

I guess discovering "Little Green Footballs" is a wacko rightwing blog has left you a bit rattled of late!! :hi:

[Forkboy]

182. He knew it all along.

[mtnsnake]

92. Typical nasty hit & run post by you, Jim Sagle, telling a hero like Cindy Sheehan to fuck off

Pathetic.

[az chela]

234. And self serving,what are you doing to end the war???

[proud2BlibKansan]

260. Oh can't you tell?

We are supporting the Dems who support the war because they aren't republicans who support the war. We have decided 18 months of more war is okey dokey. :sarcasm:

[entanglement]

331. He's chronically obnoxious and rude - it's best to ignore him

n/t

[Jax]

101. Ohhhh an english major...

about what I expect from someone who supports the right wing terrorists running the Israeli government with their fellow terrorist pal b*sh...

Cindy Sheehan has more class in her butt hair than all of those criticizing her and her STANDING up to end this oily bloodbath of lies.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[Bronyraurus]

219. Agreed, fuck off, Cindy

[AllieB]

222. You seem to be very critical

of anti-war people, and Democrats in general. Why?

[Bronyraurus]

273. Democrats in general?!

Sheehan attacks Democrats, I attack Sheehan, and you think I'm attacking Democrats? Sheehan is no Democrat, and she has no idea how government works. She has squandered any credibility she has ever had. Just because she opposes the war and has a dead son doesn't mean that she is entitled to endless patience from anonymous dudes on message boards.

[Forkboy]

229. I'm shocked.

Channeling Muddleoftheroad again.

[Bronyraurus]

274. I don't channel anyone

And I don't know who that is. But if that person was a moderate Dem, then maybe we'd have a bit to agree on.

[Forkboy]

284. You and him would have a LOT to agree on.

[Bronyraurus]

289. Is he tombstoned?

if so, why?

[Forkboy]

296. I suspect he lingers on.

Like a wet fart.

[az chela]

235. same to you ,you are acting like a child,you know like

dick cheney and g bush the school yard bullies

[Bronyraurus]

275. Yeah!

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

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

[Marrah_G]

256. Nice personal attack

[ProudDad]

300. Ah, how refreshing

and intelligent and responsive, ah, my heart runneth over at your perspicacious post...

[ruggerson]

7. "Democrats failure to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections"

So she's working for the Republicans now?

What a steaming pile of horse excrement. This not a "Democrats" war, anymore than pigs fly over Baghdad. This is a Republican war, owned and conceived by neo con Republicans and implemented and continued by George Bush and Dick CHeney.

Obviously, there are traitors here. It ain't the Democrats.

[MaggieSwanson]

88. The IWR vote was a factor in the 2004 elections.

This vote will be a factor in the 2008 elections. I don't see how stating this makes Cindy a Repub operative.

[proud2BlibKansan]

157. Anyone voting to fund it

owns it.

[no_to_war_economy]

9. Go Cindy Go!

[MuseRider]

10. Thank you Cindy

for using your voice for those of us who would never be heard.

[ananda]

13. This speaks for me!

Thank you, Cindy!

[ClayZ]

32. Cindy speaks for us, too!

And all 6 of the young VOTING adults in my family!

[NoPasaran]

15. Cindy does NOT speak for me.

[KingFlorez]

18. She just doesn't get it

The supplemental has conditions attached to it, it's a strategic move, it's not hard to understand that. The Democrats aren't the problem, Bush is, she ought to remember that he's the one with the executive power causing all the problems.

[helderheid]

21. THESE conditions?

Length of Deployment. Requires the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and
avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210
days for the Marines. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to
Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit’s extended deployment is in the
interests of national security.

[bigtree]

31. The waivers in the legislation are points of administration accountability, not loopholes

. . . for Bush to continue his occupation.

This administration already asserts some right they imagine to do what they want in the name of national security with each bill Bush signs. The provision in the Act requires Bush to come back to Congress and explain, on a unit-by-unit basis, why he needs to extend their tour of duty beyond the military standards already in place; instead of the automatic escalation Bush is taking advantage of now.


here's the provision:

( SEC. 1902. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve beyond 210 days.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the extension of a unit's deployment in Iraq beyond the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

SEC. 1903. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 210 days.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard if such unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve if such unit has been deployed within the previous 210 consecutive days.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the redeployment of a unit to Iraq in advance of the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's redeployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1591


The standard in the legislation for extending their tours is whether 'national security' is at stake. It should be easy enough for Congress to make that determination whether national security is threatened by limiting these soldiers' tours to the military standard. At that point Congress will be challenged to either 'waive' Bush by, or act to restrain him. This isn't the republican rubber-stamp majority. I expect those members who have objected to this provision to step up and demand congressional action to confront Bush at the point where he attempts to bypass the bill's restrictions.

[mmonk]

212. This administration holds congress in open contempt.

We will see what they do or don't do and what members of congress do about it if they poke a finger in their eye.

[cali]

Neither do a lot of other people.

Simple is as simple does.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. And she works just as hard for impeachment as she does for peace

Cindy DOES get it. More than most people. The Dems just voted to continue paying for a war we had no business starting in the first place. That is shameful. How many of our soldiers will die in the next 18 months?

We need courageous leaders who will work to end this war instead of worrying about being re-elected.

[az chela]

236. Cindy knows the truth,lots of you dont,if you did you

would know that the dems that want to end this war are few and the ones who are in congress are about the money

[Robbien]

36. Oh sure the Dems who voted for more war are smart players

while the Dems who wanted the funding bill to immediately burn up into ashes are the dumb Dems who don't appreciate playing smart games.

Dem oh so smart Game players voted for more war funding so that they could get a little baby step forward and get slapped back into kingdom come by a Bush signing statement.

The so called not smart Dems voted to bury the funding bill right now. If Pelosi hadn't twisted arms the bill would be dead as a door knob right now.

[az chela]

237. Totally right on about this!!!!

[bigtree]

22. Voters were clearly presented with incremental withdrawal plans during the election

It's not accurate to portray all Americans who voted for anti-occupation candidates as favoring immediate withdrawal. The legislation does contain a provision to pursue terrorists, but it only mandates a "limited" engagement, not the long-term commitment that those in opposition to the bill have been claiming. Bush and his enablers certainly don't see this bill as a license to continue their occupation.

Also, the withdrawal proposals she favored also "funded" the withdrawal they envisioned.


Here's the provision that some claim is a loophole allowing Bush to continue his occupation indefinitely:

(f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.
(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Nothing in the provision gives Bush the sole power to determine any of these. Congress will still be in place to challenge any assertion that troops are needed to address these concerns. This provision spells that out for the skeptical:

It is the sense of Congress that, because the commanders of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq have the training, experience, and first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground--

(1) the commanders should be allowed to conduct the war and manage the movements of the troops; and
(2) Congress should remain focused on executing its oversight role.


http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1591

[ruggerson]

29. Thanks. Your post says it all.

But the "idol worship" crowd here does not respond to facts, common sense or reality.

[helderheid]

33. We respond to deaths in an illegal war.

[mmonk]

23. I've got your back Cindy

and you too Helderheid.

[az chela]

239. ME TOO

[ruggerson]

24. Sometimes I'd swear Sheehan is on the payroll of the RNC

n/t

[stirlingsliver]

42. Because She Supports an Immediate End to this Illegal War?

What an odd thing to say.

To suggest that Cindy is on the payroll of those who would continue the war without end.

[ruggerson]

43. Because she's betraying the party that is trying to end it

obviously.

[stirlingsliver]

47. Interesting Word -- "Betraying"

What an interesting word that is -- "betraying".

Some of us voted to end the war in the last election.

Do you think we might feel "betrayed" by a party that just voted to continue funding that war?

[earth mom]

127. NO-the Dems have betrayed the people who put them in office!

All the Dems have done since January is go with the flow and do what the rethugs want. They haven't impeached * & Co for their NUMEROUS CRIMES and they haven't worked to stop this illegal and immoral war. What the fuck are they doing but betraying the people and serving their corporate masters?!

You want to say that what Cindy is demanding is stupid?! Okay, turn about is fair play. FYI-your posts defending the Dems are nothing more than stupid DINO B.S.!

FYI:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-penn/an-open-letter-to-the-pre_b_44172.html

[cali]

137. Speak for yourself.

My congressional delegation- Senators Leahy and Sanders, and my rep, Peter Welch certainly do speak for me, and I can tell you that most Vermonters, and the vast majority of liberal dems and Progressives here, feel the same way. What's more, most of us feel that all three have been working their asses off since January, and that Leahy and Sanders have been doing so for years.

[mondo joe]

221. Which dems ran in impeaching Bush? Can you name a few?

Thank you.

[az chela]

243. Oh yah the lily white dems,ha Things are not what

they appear with a lot of these people

[Leopolds Ghost]

334. You mean she's "betraying" the party that now supports a permanent US troop presence.

A party she never claimed to be an active volunteer for.

[KingFlorez]

46. If she's not, she might as well be, she bashes Democrats more than she does Bush

[MaggieSwanson]

48. Who do you think she has a better chance with?

Our Dems might listen to us. The neocons will not.

[ruggerson]

55. No, the dynamics of what happens is

Cindy ends up alienating the very Democrats who are trying their best to, within the framework of reality, stop this war. She is a prime example of what Obey was railing against. She JUST DOESN'T GET IT.

[MaggieSwanson]

57. I think she gets it.

I think she rightfully shames those who are complicit in perpetuating this war, whatever their justifications.

[ruggerson]

59. "Shaming" is a stupid, ineffective, self defeating political tactic

she should be expending her energies on electing MORE Democrats in '08, so if, God forbid, we have another Republic prez, at least we would be closer to a veto proof majority.

Instead she calls this the "Democrats war."

Unbelievably stupid.

[MaggieSwanson]

86. I'd rather have

the RIGHT Dems in place than just a generic "MORE" Dems.

What good will it do any of us to have a bunch of spineless freshman-want-to-be-career Dems in the House and Senate, who will bend to every DLC command?

We need real Dems, no more Liebermans and Millers who make it seem that there is little difference between us and them.

The public is hungry for a new direction and not the status quo. It's time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If shaming those who would vote to fund this miserable war hurts us for the moment, I honestly believe that the party will be better and stronger for it in the long run.

I can see that we discagree, and that's cool - I like to hear your opinion, too.

Peace,

Maggie

[cali]

90. Sorry. You're never gonna get the "right" dems in places

like Gene Taylor's district in MS, or Heath Schuler's in NC, Brad Miller's in Indiana, Stephanie Hesketh's in ND, etc. Not in the forseeable future. I'd love it if we could, but it's simply not a reality. In addition, many, many good Progressives voted for this, and not just for political gain or because they're cowards. They didn't like it much, but they knew that what they wanted would never even make it to the floor.

[proud2BlibKansan]

158. They said the same thing about Jim Ryun

And Nancy Boyda beat him.

[Blue_Roses]

114. I usuallly stay out of this one

'cause my heart goes out to her and her loss, but I have to agree with you on this one.

[cali]

160. You're kidding. With the rhetoric she employs above

and the outright lies she tells about the war and dems, she has NO chance of being listened to by anyone in power.

[ruggerson]

49. Yep

she shoots herself in the foot at every convenient occasion.

[saracat]

62. Makes me wonder as well!

[helderheid]

77. 'Cuz the RNC wants to end this war and stuff

:eyes:

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[az chela]

241. This doesnt even deserve an answer

[proud2BlibKansan]

262. Oh I was getting excited about that possibility

cause if she is really on the RNC payroll, that means she finally has some money and next time I see her, she can pick up the tab for dinner! At a really nice restaurant.

Don't spoil my fantasy, okay?

[Tennessee Gal]

28. Cindy does not speak for me.

I think she should have kept her focus on Republican failures.

[Marrah_G]

83. Agreed!

[Individualist]

50. Cindy is a woman with integrity

and principles. I applaud her for that!

[Solly Mack]

65. Wow - just wow

this thread, that is

[helderheid]

68. Amazing, isn't it?

[Solly Mack]

115. I support Cindy. I am a military family but I don't share her exact pain

because I did not lose my soldier...though every day this lie people want to politely frame as a war goes on is a day my husband comes closer to going back and dying.

What I do share is the urgency that this crime end and the shared experience of waiting to know if your loved one is dead or alive...her wait is over and a whole new pain has taken its place.

Cindy is doing what her heart tells her to do to spare me her pain.

I will not fault that. I can't fault that. I support that wholeheartedly.

People think - well, people like to try and marginalize others by fallaciously claiming you must not understand "reality" if you support an immediate end to the crime America is perpetrating in Iraq and against American troops...but those people have no clue to my reality or Cindy's...they can only see a reality that allows them to feel good about what they define as political gains...but those gains, if any, don't stop the dying...they don't change my reality one little bit. At the end of the day those people can sleep without my worries... but it never ends for me. That's my reality.

"Support the troops" is a handy phrase people use to attack other people with and speaking as a military family, I'm more than a little tired of it.

I want some real support and real support does not include playing politics with my husband's life.

My family was betrayed the very instant our government chose to invade a country for lies and we've been betrayed by our government every single day since.

[az chela]

245. AMEN!!!!!!!!!!SOMEONE with a brain

[ClayZ]

326. Kick

[libnnc]

78. Actually, it's a good thing

serves as a good way to update my ignore list.

Makes it really simple, actually.

[WillyT]

97. Amazing The Number Of Blue Dogs, No ???

Blue or not... dogs of war.

:evilfrown:

[jonnyblitz]

100. no shit. makes you wonder why this site has "Underground" in

it's name. This place has become a site for apologists for establishment DEM politicians in DC. Lobotomized sheep.

[mmonk]

71. Do any of you who are critical of Cindy in this thread have

a loved one or relative in this "war"? If so, cite why you are critical of her or if not, why you feel your postion is superior to what she is trying to do. Otherwise, IMO, let her exercise her right to be critical of whatever legislative action or inaction she deems to respond to.

[Marrah_G]

82. Yes I do.

And I want him to come. I want his children to have a father and undermining the one party trying to accomplish that is in my opinion, NOT helping. She is not a golden cow with some magical shield against disagreeing with her on some things.

[mmonk]

102. Thank you for responding.

I do not believe anyone is a golden cow with a magical shield, only that she has and has earned a right to speak her mind. Her whole point is she doesn't believe enough is being done (drawing a line in the sand). Her point is also, if one is going to claim to be the one to get us out, then do so.

[Marrah_G]

103. I absolutely agree with her right to speak out

I just disagree some (not all) of the things she says.

[ruggerson]

108. I think the vast majority here feel she has the right to speak out

And, likewise, some of us are exercising OUR right to vehemently disagree with her. Yet, we get jumped for having the audacity to question her, because she's a sacred cow for some of you.

[mmonk]

138. Why sacred cow? Why not just a difference of opinion?

Could one say whatever the dem leadership comes up with is a sacred cow?

[Marrah_G]

140. It is a difference of opinion

The sacred cow part is the fact that some here feel that Cindy can do no wrong, that one can never ever disagree with her.. If they do voice any dissent they are labeled as horrible, cruel, pro-war Dino's.

She has her opinion, others have a differing one. As far as I know she has no special DU status that forbids criticism of anything she does.

[az chela]

246. Yes I do,he is in Anbar province and Cindy is doing everything she

can do to end this war!!!!!!Not all dems want it ended.
Nancy Pelosi and her husband have a lot of money invested in this war as he is a contractor for the
rebuilding of Iraq and she just resigned from her job in the company as it was considered a conflick of interest

[riverdeep]

73. I've got no beef with Cindy

She was the one camping out in Crawford when it was unfashionable. She has a right to speak. But so do people who, in this instance, disagree with her focus. I don't think that people get that politicians are not leaders. They are followers. They stick their finger in the air and see where the wind blows. And why is there not an outcry for the war to end now, immediately? Because some Americans really believe in the war. Others believe to leave now would result in even more of a bloodbath. And the majority of Americans that would like to see the troops home in 6 months are too comfortable. When they have one hour of electricity, get shot at when they go outside, have no water, they would change their tune. But they don't, so they won't.

And the dems have to work in this reality.

[walldude]

87. So you are saying that Iraqi's want us to stay because

they don't have electricity or water and are getting shot at? And "some" Americans really believe in the war? True, about 30% still don't have a clue but last time I checked we were a majority rule country.

[Marrah_G]

91. we actually are not a majority rule country

[walldude]

96. Ok, I'll give you that one but we are supposed to be...

[Marrah_G]

98. No we aren't

Majority rule most often ends in the oppression of minority groups (not speaking in just racial terms). The founding fathers knew this and specifically formed the government so as not to be majority rule on the federal level. You do find majority rule in smaller town-type governments.

[riverdeep]

93. No

I mean if Americans had to live as the Iraqis are living now, it would compel them to act. But they aren't, so the situation doesn't seem as dire to them.

Also, I'm not making a call on the rightness or wrongness of these outlooks, just that they exist, and have to be navigated by politicians.

[ClayZ]

99. If Americans saw pictures, even, of the carnage!

Perhaps things would be different!

[az chela]

247. When someone exposes the truth about all the money and

power involved in this war they are criticized.Not all politicians want this war to end.
If someone speaks up and says something about it they are called betrayers

[johncoby2]

94. She lacks intelligence of the process

Unless we get Republicans to back the Democrats in the senate, nothing is going to come of this.

[helderheid]

95. She lacks a son who was killed in this war.

[ClayZ]

105. "He ain't no fortunate son"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gBRNO1k2vY

bu$h twins enlist

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x20552

Thanks, Elsewhere's daughter!

[Freddie Stubbs]

113. Apperently her loss did not impart her with much wisdom as to how the political system works

She has her right to say what she wants. But that doesn't mean that everyone must agree with her.

[cali]

117. Sadly, it appears as if

rhetorical bombthrowing at liberal dems, is what she substitutes for wisdom.

[mmonk]

209. The 1st amendment.

[LittleClarkie]

118. Do freeper mothers who've lost children enjoy the same infalibility

I've asked that before.

Whenever Cindy is defended in this way, as if her opinions are sacred because of her loss, I wonder if freeper mom's opinions are similarly sacred.

[saracat]

146. Notice no one has the integrity or the guts to answer that? I asked that too!

But the coolaid drinkers don't want to have to think too hard.Sorry to be mean but I am sick of this eating our own through sheer stupidity!

[mmonk]

231. I have both. Anyone who has a loved one killed in this war

has a right to express themselves (and anyone else for that matter) and that includes the right to be critical of our party if they do see fit. Just like any politician backing any position or refusing to back a certain position is not immune from criticism or to be thought to be.

[helderheid]

162. Absolutely they are. I've not walked a mile in their shoes.

[az chela]

248. Excellent reason to stop this war,no matter what it takes

or who is exposed

[Marrah_G]

106. People often just do not understand the way the government works

I think many people though all it would take was a majority in the house and senate and they would be able to run right in and take a vote to end the war. Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way. We have some really good ( and some crappy) Dems that are fighting within the system to fix this mess Bush has made. It is going to take time and it is not going to be easy.

[KingFlorez]

134. Good post

[Jax]

104. Outstanding as always Cindy!!!

Keep speaking up and out.

Thank you for posting this helderheid :thumbsup:

Same old same old do nothing whiners criticizing her all over the place.

[JNelson6563]

107. There are some who know nothing

but screaming bloody murder. Cindy is apparently one of these and the keyboard commandoes (who'd rather sever a limb than do something productive) eat it up.

At least the screaming probably relieves the feeling of impotency. Too bad so many will never know the sense of accomplishment from actually doing stuff and appreciating step-by-step progress.

Julie

[helderheid]

110. How bloody ignorant.

[madfloridian]

119. There is nothing "ignorant" about Julie. She works hard for Democracy

You should be ashamed. All of us here at DU work in various ways to get our country back, but she does far more than most of us.

I am stunned you would say this.

I think Cindy is wrong on this as well.

[helderheid]

163. I am stunned she would be so ignorant to assume those who support

Cindy are simply keyboard warriors. Idol worship? Many of us are working for change and THAT pisses me off about what she said.

[uppityperson]

217. been staying out of this but have to say I agree with you.

Not going to get into "who has done more" etc discussion, but bloody insulting: "Too bad so many will never know the sense of accomplishment from actually doing stuff and appreciating step-by-step progress."

[madfloridian]

240. Julie is a very hard worker on the ground. She was insulted.

I gather you are agreeing with that insult.

Hubby and I are active and busy as well.

Who are you to judge?

That is the problem here. Cindy has been given sainthood, and if we don't kiss the ring we are not respecting her loss.

That is just not true. Cindy judges our Democrats for this war far more harshly than she has judged Republicans.

It is the judging. None of you have a right to judge Julie or me.

[helderheid]

253. Isn't that EXACTLY the point? Pot, kettle, black. How can she know who here is or isn't working on

the ground?

[uppityperson]

264. I don't see her as insulted but as insulting. I won't play "libruler than thou" game.

She works, many o9f us work. Just because someone agrees with Cindy does not mean they know nothing, or are merely "keyboard commandoes (who'd rather sever a limb than do something productive)". That I consider an insult and call her on that.

Sainthood? No. But calling me a "keyboard commandoes (who'd rather sever a limb than do something productive)" is an insult. Edited to add, how the hell does she know what I do, or do not? How? What gives her the right to say this about me? I am protesting THAT insult. Period.

[JNelson6563]

214. Indeed, it is!

Make steps toward stated goal and come out full power against it, yep, you summed it up perfectly. Bloody ignorant.

Julie

[shance]

191. Has the Bush Administration killed one of your children Julie?

I'm surprised at your post - why do you attack someone who is doing so much to shine light on the atrocities and war crimes (being enacted in our name) being deluged on every American by the Bush Administration and the wealthy Washingtonians who could give a God damn what you and I think.

Do you really think we are going to leave Iraq?

Do you think the Democrats are really going to stand up and do what is right, when a good portion of them are profitting off of this war?

What do you know from personal experience about war Julie?

I don't know much, but I know enough to realize I can't speak fairly about what I haven't experienced. I can only try and empathize and understandas best I can.

I have met Cindy a few times, and I know if you met her you would like her too.

[saracat]

196. What about the freepers that lost their kids and WANT the war to continue ?

Do you support them too ? Is their position acceptable because they have lost their children in this war? Just asking.

[shance]

216. They are in denial of what is happening Sara. You and I can't imagine that pain or loss

in truth, because it hasn't happened to either of us.

So we really can't know how we might or might not respond.

If parents of troops that died support the war, it is certainly more understandable to have a psychological need to believe something that the alternative may be too painful to confront otherwise.

They have lost a child to a lie. How easy is that for anyone to accept?

[JNelson6563]

213. For the first time there's a deadline

I call that progress.

In hometown newspapers across the country the Dems are being decalred victors for having won a victory in demanding an actual withdrawel instead of a blank check that provides funding with no strings attached.

For those who see this as a negative, yeah, I say they don't get it.

Julie

[shance]

215. Julie, do you believe they are going to bring these kids home?

With four Halliburton cities built in Iraq?

Dear friend I don't believe we are going anywhere. Theres more money and natural resources in the Middle East for the very rich to steal from all of us so they can control everyone and everything. I believe we are being taken for a big long ride by those in DC.

I hope I am wrong.

Unfortunately I haven't been yet.

I believe members of both parties are lying to the American people now.

Time will tell, but I believe its time to take our power back from Washington, which I believe is the reason our country is dying.

I've been in political fundraising for some time now in California. What I can tell you, from what I have observed year after year, is we as Americans give Washington our money and they continue to betray us time and time again, and pass laws that strip all Americans of our power.

I once pointedly asked Debbie Stabenow from Michigan at a reception why she voted for the Bankruptcy bill, and she looked at me like a deer caught in headlights and said, and I quote:

"Well, its not really that bad"

Yes, that is one of our esteemed Democratic senators and she's one of the BETTER ones.

Either they are dumb, or they are willingly complicit and part of the hijacking happening against our country.

I think we have got to clean some house, (which means get rid of all electronic voting) because many of our leaders are put in office by the corporations, and we still believe we put them there, which is why I am so cautious about these manniquins running for president.

I know you and I are both fans of Governor Dean. He's one who's excluded from this category of complicit folks.

[ProudDad]

305. Yeah, right

and the "deadline" has about as much chance of being met as Windows Vista's deadline of 2004 was...

And it's less binding than Windows' was...

[stirlingsliver]

201. Cindy? A Know Nothing?

Cindy knows nothing?

Which of the following statements from Cindy's comments is NOT true:

-- The Democratic leadership has proposed $100 billion of supplemental funding for an increased troop presence in Iraq.

-- This extends the occupation for at least another 18 months,

It appears to me that Cindy does know something.

[az chela]

250. Since she is in the middle of all this constantly I am sure she

knows more than almost all of us!!!!!
She meets with Conyers and Feingold and a lot of other good people who she supports

[mmonk]

311. We'll see where and how long this process takes us.

I understand the numbers game. I understand how bills go through, get mark ups, etc., etc. The big thing is showing fight. The big thing is making a case. The current process may work but I honetly don't see how. No matter how much you compromise principle and power to this administration and its support groups in both houses of congress, you're not going to get the war stopped without serious backbone. They hold all opposition in contempt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. The anti-war movement doesn't belong to either party. Both need to be held accountable.

Cindy and those who want the carnage ended should not be encumbered by allegiance to either of the major parties who got us into Iraq and continue to support it by funding it.

[cassiepriam]

111. Cindy is right as usual. Congress has sent many more to be killed and maimed.

This is not what we voted for.

End the killing NOW.

[meldroc]

112. I'll go ahead and say it again...

Cindy and I, while agreeing on the fact we should defund the war, seem to disagree on how to do it.

I'm for the strategy of sending Bush only war funding bills that he will veto. Back-door defunding. Seems a lot easier than defunding the war explicitly.

Of course, we have to make sure our Congresscritters stick to this plan, and not say uncle and agree to a funding bill that Bush will actually sign.

[mzmolly]

120. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I lost family in Iraq. But, I don't feel betrayed

by Democrats for setting a time limit. Democrats didn't say they could have the troops home tomorrow.

I support Cindy for speaking her conscience, but I'm not sure why she feels "betrayed?"

[cali]

122. I wish she wouldn't lie.

The comment that "Democrats in the Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq..", isn't true. Congress authorized bushco. In fact, the MAJORITY of dems in the House, voted against the IWR. In the Senate 21 dems voted against it with one independent. Does Cindy hold the repukes responsible in this claim? Not for a moment. She claims that the troops in Iraq will increase by 100,000 by year's end. Does she provide any evidence for this claim? Why no.

She asserts that it's the democrat's war. That's a real whopper. This war was initiated by bushco and conducted by bushco. Hold the dems who voted for the IWR responsible. Hold Lieberman responsible, but don't fucking tar strong anti-war dems, and the party as a whole with that damnable lie.

She claims to speak for the American people. She doesn't, anymore than bush does. And I have a strong distrust of ANYONE who claims to speak for the American people as whole.

Who does Cindy speak for? A tiny minority, that's who.

[rockymountaindem]

136. Right on

I think you might be my favorite DUer, Cali.

[cali]

139. Why thanks, RMD.

I'm surprised and flattered. It's hardly a secret that many DUers would disagree with you.

[ProudDad]

306. You've got THAT right...

:shrug:

[cali]

339. Yep. And it's hardly a secret

that I could care less what certain DUers think of me. Frankly, I think letting individual posters get under your skin, to the degree that I evidently do, is a waste of time.

[ProudDad]

363. Under my skin?

No.

Amused and occasionally amazed at a semi-unique form of contrarian ignorance...maybe....

[proud2BlibKansan]

175. Oh so every Democrat in Congress voted against the invasion of Iraq?

That's interesting, since my rep is a Dem, was a Dem when he voted FOR the war and so were several other reps in Congress. So yes,

"Democrats in the Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq.."

is indeed a true statement.

Now as for all these anti-war Dems, you do realize that if they voted to fund the war on Friday they aren't really anti-war? Actions speak far louder than words.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

268. Bill Clinton enacted the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, it laid the foundation for this war.

John Edwards didn't just sign the IWR...he co-sponsored it!

Cindy's right, ...it's a shame, dems are allowing this war to last until right before the '08 elections...shame on them for playing politics with our soldiers lives!

proud2Blib...I have agreed with everything you wrote on this post (maybe that's why I think you're so smart) :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

276. Thanks Kathy!

Good to know I have friends here. Some days I am left wondering. LOL

Thanks for the reminder about the 1998 ILA and about Edwards. I am willing to give him a pass, as he has since admitted he made a mistake.

Going to Camp Casey for Easter in just a few weeks. Can't wait to see my girl Cindy once again. She inspires me so.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

281. Say Hi to Cindy for me...She says so many things I wish our dems would say.

When I watch TV and I see our leaders like Sen. Chuck Schulmer say Bush did "nothing" that would be considered impeachable...It makes me want to scream!

So many here feel we shouldn't "eat" our own, but I think we have to weed out the pack inorder to leave only the most patriotic dems. We need a hero in the White House.

(re: Edwards, as much as feel sorry for all that he and his family has gone through and is going through, I can't forgive him for siding up with the likes of Lieberman and McCain by co-sponsoring the IWR)...I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, thinking he probaly listened to/and trusted the Clintons when they said that Saddam sould be dealt with. ...but still 21 dems knew not to side up with the GOP...THOSE are the dems who should get our full support.

:patriot: :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

350. Edwards has apologized

Hillary has not. :)

[uppityperson]

195. Maria Cantwell and I corresponded over this issue.

She said she voted to give Mr.bush the right to threaten repercussions, not the right to invade/attack Iraq. I told her she was a naive fool if she truly believed this was not what he would do with this. A bit more politely, but basically that. My problem is that the democrats didn't call them on it. I know, minority status, and I know, need to work within the system. But still.

[az chela]

251. You need to get your facts straight!!!!!!!

Cindy speaks for thousands how many so you speak for?????

[Marrah_G]

255. The poster never claimed to speak for anyone

The poster is correct in saying Ms Sheehan does not speak for the majority of Americans, but rather a small portion of America. There are also, in my opinion, a larger portion of people who agree with some of what she says, but not everything.

[cali]

330. I do have my facts straight and as someone else noted

I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. And sorry, Cindy played fast and loose with facts, she employs divisive and not very intelligent absolutist rhetoric, and she frequently claime to be speaking for Americans as a whole. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter. The only place she even gets exposure anymore, is on DU and a few other internet sites. Hell, even over at kos, no one bothered to diary this. The MSM, which used to cover her quite a bit, now doesn't cover her practically at all. She's made herself alsmost completely irrelevant.

[proud2BlibKansan]

358. Cali, you know far less than you give yourself credit for

You accused Cindy of lying, we proved you wrong and now you continue to spout your bullshit and criticism.

You seem to despise Cindy and the peace activists who are doing far more than you are to bring this damn war to an end. Are you actually a supporter of the war? Do you own stock in Halliburton? Why are you so determined to demean Cindy Sheehan and her supporters? It's one thing to disagree but another thing entirely to slam her, especially when it is painfully obvious you are playing fast and loose with the facts, you don't know Cindy, you don't follow or support her, and you think she is out to ruin the Democratic party.

You couldn't be more wrong.

You also apparently don't realize that most of the peace community would be active participants and supporters of the Democratic party you so unfailingly support here, were it not for loyalists like you who take the 'my way or the highway' approach. We worked our butts off to help Dem candidates get elected in November. We are experienced activists and most candidates were thrilled to welcome us to their campaigns. They told us they wanted to end the war, that it was a priority. But as soon as they took office, from day one, they have done little to nothing to bring our troops home.

Now you offend us by claiming we don't understand the process Congress must adhere to.

When 2008 rolls around, and all these Dems need help being re-elected, do you honestly believe the peace community will sign on to help them? Do you really think it is smart to alienate a large group of grassroots activists?

I used to think the party was a big tent. But after the last few weeks here on DU, I am starting to wonder.

[knight_of_the_star]

124. Cindy please learn how the process works

No matter how hard the Dems in Congress push to get them out, IT WON'T HAPPEN! The GOP in the Senate will block anything we do along those lines and Bush will gladly veto anything to get them out. No matter how much we push to make it happen the GOP is standing squarely in the way, and if she wants to blame DEMOCRATS, who are TRYING to reign the neocons in, for prolonging a war when it is REPUBLICANS who are doing the blocking maneuvers, in my opinion she needs to educate herself on the process and get her eyes checked.

[saracat]

144. That wazx nmy point exactly! But some will not listen to reason!

How dare you make sense? We must stop the war NOW .Just because Cindy says so.And BTW, don't bother to have a "plan" that would take time.

[knight_of_the_star]

227. Rome wasn't built in a day

And Hitler wasn't beaten overnight. Final victory for peace will come, but it won't be swift. If only some people would understand that better.

[The Witch]

263. Maybe she has. Maybe this is calculated of her.

There's so many people on the right side of the rope, we need people like Cindy to be tugging on the other side or we'll never win this tug of war.

This sort of pressure helps. Politicians need public pressure to justify their actions. We could never have passed a binding resolution if the pressure out there was only for a binding resolution. We need to ask for more than they can provide, or they will provide us with less than they can. Cindy's doing her part here. I really think she knows that she has to be the self-righteous ideologue that the politicos can use to inch in that direction.

[knight_of_the_star]

361. Except she's doing so unfairly

This war isn't the Dems war and what she's saying now could be used to bite us in the ass in '08 and help the GOP keep their position and maybe win back some lost ground.

[ProudDad]

307. Sorry, this is how the process would work

The quickest way would be to SEND NO SUPPLEMENTAL bill to bush.

[earth mom]

128. Cindy ROCKS! Recommended! eom

[noamnety]

130. All those uppity women speaking their minds

without regard for what's good for the party.

What ARE we going to do with them?

[seriousstan]

131. Anyone who thinks Cindy Sheehan has an IQ above 80 hasn't paid attention.

Her only "cause" is herself.

[proud2BlibKansan]

166. Gee I have read that same comment

in other places that don't have 'democratic' in their name. :eyes:

[seriousstan]

184. Yes, and Hitler drank milk so milk must be bad.

Cindy Sheehan has jumped the shark and now is all about herself. She has been.

[ProudDad]

308. You're not really serious

are you?

What a silly statement...

I've watched her progress from a timid, tongue tied, mother in extreme grief to a very powerful conscience for the anti-war movement which has brought the majority of the country up to speed.

She has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to call the Dems on their shit...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[madfloridian]

135. She and her supporters judge everyone else too harshly.

It has been a pattern.

[saracat]

147. Absolutely correct , madfloridian.

[cali]

151. Yep. It's a familiar mentality.

You're either with us or you're against us. where have I heard that before?

[ClayZ]

161. You get what you pay for!

With your purchase of this war, comes a guarantee of:

*The deaths of 3 U.S. Troops and countless Iraqi children, women and men every day
*Over 500 wounded U.S. troops each month
*Increased destruction of marriages and families of Iraq War Veterans
*Inadequate medical and physiological care for returning troops and Veterans
*Underfunding of health care, education, social services for people in the U.S.
*Destruction of Iraqi infrastructure
*Decreased credibility for the United States in the world community
*Decreased readiness-short and long-term- of US military

www.mfso.org
www.iwaw.org
www.vetereansforpeace.org

[stirlingsliver]

167. Figures for Eighteen Months Of Authorization

Thanks for posting this.

Some quick arithmetic finds that by authorizing 18 more months of war, Congress has authorized:

*The deaths of 1,644 U.S. Troops and countless Iraqi children, women and men every day
*Over 9,000 wounded U.S. troops each month
*Increased destruction of marriages and families of Iraq War Veterans
*Inadequate medical and physiological care for returning troops and Veterans
*Underfunding of health care, education, social services for people in the U.S.
*Destruction of Iraqi infrastructure
*Decreased credibility for the United States in the world community
*Decreased readiness-short and long-term- of US military

[cali]

169. If the dems had purchased the war, you'd be correct.

But they didn't. This legislation is aimed at reining in bushco and there's plenty in it that does just that. Stop cherry picking from the legislation. And it is bushco's war, just in case you have trouble identifying those responsible for it.

[ClayZ]

177. OK I will change my flag to say

"Just a Little More War."

Sorry, it does not fit into my heart!

"Best we can do" .. is not good enough for the ones who will die because of it!

[cali]

181. Wars are easier gotten into than out of

and the absolutist mindset of Sheehan and those of you who agree with her neglects to take into account the structure of Congress. There is no easy way out. I only wish there were.

[ClayZ]

186. Again, there is wrong and wronger than wrong.

A little more of something wrong does not make it unwrong! I can not see what you ask me to see.

One more death is wrong.
One more dollar to pay for it .. is still wrong!
One more voice saying ok just 18 months more... is again, wrong.

There is nothing right about wrong!

[ProudDad]

309. We shall see

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see bush sign this bill.

I also wouldn't be at all surprised to see your precious "timelines" stripped from the bill in conference.

As for the war, it belongs to anyone who voted for the original authorization...Dems and pukes...

[stirlingsliver]

156. You Might Do So Also

You might "judge" people too harshly is you had lost a brave young son in a totally immoral, totally illegal, and totally unneccessary war that is based on nothing but lies.

I know I would use every opportunity I had to keep saying the same message -- that the war is illegal, immoral, totally unneccessary, and based upon lies upon lies.

I know that I would keep calling for an immediate (not in three months, not in six months, not in eighteen months) end to this war.

And I know that if I were to do so, I would no doubt be "judged" by others who say that I am the one who is "judging everybody else too harshly".

[shance]

218. To have standards and to want the war to end is "harsh"?

You are being sold a bill of goods and you are paying for it with interest Floridian. And your defending the fact you've just been conned into believing this is a "step forward".

A step forward for who?

I cannot believe Floridian you are buying this. It is crystal clear the legislation is going to escort more kids and families and children to their grave.

What do you stand for Floridian? Compromise?

Who's making the compromise? Not you darlin.

Oh, actually you are. Your purchasing of this war with your taxpayer money otherwise, would not go into the pockets of Halliburton shareholders but it could actually go to strengthen public education and healthcare here in the states, is going to do nothing but slaughter more people and animals and toxify the soid, devastate more regions and that includes our own nation.

Guess when its NOT YOUR CHILD, then we've got all the time in the world?

Floridian, quit defending the indefensible and wake up. I know Cindy may have criticized Governor Dean but please get over that now.

We have much bigger fish to fry.

You are way too smart to be blind yourself to what is happening in your name. And by the way, so is Governor Dean and/or anyone else who may be defending what this legislation is going to mean to us as Americans.

[madfloridian]

228. Thanks for making my point and judging me harshly.

That is exactly what I was talking about. If we disagree with Cindy we don't get a break at all. It is all or nothing.

My point was made, but it makes me sad that you think of me that way.

There is no point trying to explain, is there?

So be it.

[Marrah_G]

238. Don't waste your time

Those who have turned Ms Sheehan into their own personal savior will never tolerate anything but unquestioning devotion to her every utterance. It doesn't matter is you agree with some or even most of what she does, if you voice a criticism you become the enemy.

[madfloridian]

244. I am their enemy. Most surely. How very sad.

:hi:

[ProudDad]

310. Just 'cause someone

posts silly, irrational responses doesn't make them my enemy... :shrug:

[shance]

266. Why do you play the victim when confronted with questions? You're bigger than that Floridian.

You didnt seem to read what I read.

The true victims are not you or me.

The victims are the ones being murdered in the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason other than being in the way of Bush/Cheney's oil safari.

The victims are innocents like Pat Tillman, who gave up a 3.5 million dollar contract to go to Afghanistan. Why and who murdered him? Was he murdered possibly indirectly by those in and around this Administration so they could manufacture a hero and kill a potentional dissenting threat in the ranks of the Army? The true victims are also the Tillman family. Not only did their son die, but he was murdered by his own supposed friends, his own fellow troops. And why? Will the Tillmans ever know? They are the parents like Cindy that got the phone call.

You and I have not gotten that phone call. How then, can you dare to critize someone like Cindy Sheehan?

Of course Cindy is no victim as she has proven herself to be an adult and a leader. Is that why many of you condemn her so? Because she is strong and a women and dares to critize the institution you seem to now deify?

[Marrah_G]

272. talk about deifying......

Floridian has a different point of view then you do. Lots of people have a different point of view. Just because Cindy's son died does not make her infallible, nor does it make her immune from criticism. Sorry it just does not work that way.

[EFerrari]

302. Yes, we very harshly expect forward movement. n/t

[NYCGirl]

159. How did the Democrats authorize Bush to invade Iraq? Didn't the majority of

Democrats vote AGAINST the IWR? Did Cindy Sheehan forget that?

[proud2BlibKansan]

168. They voted to continue funding bush's war

[NYCGirl]

172. So when she says,

"In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House," she's wrong?

[proud2BlibKansan]

179. When did I say she was wrong?

She is pointing out that for many Democrats, they are far more worried about the next election than the deaths in the war. And I would agree with that statement.

[NYCGirl]

183. She didn't say MANY Democrats, she didn't say SOME Democrats, she said

"Democrats". With the GOP trying their damndest to pin this mess on Democrats, forgive us Democrats if we're just a bit touchy on that sort of imprecise language. I think it'd be much more productive if she turned her ire to the people who DID get us into this mess.

[proud2BlibKansan]

189. She did

She began lobbying republicans 4 years ago, when the war started. They were the majority party. Now Dems are the majority party. If you don't want Cindy lobbying them, don't vote for them.

[NYCGirl]

194. Yes, I remember it — but we may be a majority, but we don't have a LARGE majority.

The people who are holding this back are STILL the Republicans. But, of course, they wouldn't listen to her.

[cali]

199. Oh please, she was going hammer and tongs after

way before they were elected to the majority last fall. And I'm not talking about selective or constructive criticism, I'm talking about mindless, sometimes FALSE blanket accusations that do NOTHING to advance the cause she purports to care about. She does far more harm than good now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

254. Oh cali, you figured her out - damn

Her real agenda is to destroy the democratic party. :sarcasm:

[Puglover]

340. Spell out.

Exactly what harm she does. Please enlighten me. You seem to always have the facts. What harm does she do?

[stirlingsliver]

192. Cindy Has This Nasty Habit.

Cindy has this nasty little habit.

She speaks the TRUTH to POWER.

Speaking the TRUTH to the majority in both houses of Congress is speaking TRUTH to Power.

Speaking the Truth to the Speaker of the House is speaking Truth to POWER.

Some seem to suggest that she should not speak the TRUTH.

Or that she should not speak it to POWER.

[NYCGirl]

197. She can speak whatever she wants — but whether it's the TRUTH or not is all

opinion, and this is coming from an old hippie VietNam protester from San Francisco.

[stirlingsliver]

198. Opinion? Really?

Which of the following is not true?:

-- The Democratic leadership has proposed $100 billion of supplemental funding for an increased troop presence in Iraq.

-- The leadership opted for the “slow bleed” policy over a month ago.

-- This extends the occupation for at least another 18 months.

I think each of those statements from Cindy is true.

And that's not an opinion.

[NYCGirl]

200. Opinion is how facts are presented. If she just said those things, it would be

reportage. I have a big problem with the "slow bleed" term; it was coined by the GOP and passed around to all their minions — I don't like to hear it used. No matter what you or I or Cindy Sheehan says we will not be out of Iraq NOW. 18 months is far better than NEVER.

[stirlingsliver]

203. And Six Months Would Be Better than 18 months.

And three months would be better than six months.

And three weeks would be better than three months.

And three days would be better than three weeks.

Of course, those are only my opinions.

It is also my opinion that any live lost in this illegal war is one life that should not have been lost.

And eighteen months of lives being lost is way too long.

In my opinion.

Your opinion may vary.

[NYCGirl]

204. 18 months in reality is much better than six months in fantasy. That's my opinion.

Yours may vary.

[stirlingsliver]

206. Ah, Yes, We Do Need To Be "Realistic"

How stupid of me.

To think that it is a mere "fantasy" that the war could end in six months.

We simply must be realistic, mustn't we?

While we are being realistic, people are dying -- real live people are dying and being maimed for life.

But we must be realistic.

And, of course, it just won't do to have people like Cindy (who, by the way, lost a son who will never come back -- that's some reality for you, isn't it?) to speak the truth that Congress Vote to fund this illegal war for another 18 months.

[ProudDad]

314. 81 Dems in the House and 29 in the Senate voted for bush's war

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (House Joint Resolution 114) was signed October 16, 2002, as Public Law 107-243 by President George W. Bush. <1>

On Thursday, October 10, 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 296-133 <2> and, on Friday, October 11, 2002, the U.S. Senate voted 77-23 to "authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions." <3>

The resolution required President Bush "to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed," CNN reported.

The resolution required Bush to "certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network" that attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2001. It also required the Bush administration "to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days."


House:

Yeas Nays NV
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 81 126 1
Independent 1
TOTALS 296 133 3

Senate:

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---77

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)


NAYs ---23

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[ClintonTyree]

335. So, wouldn't the correct response.........

be to condemn the Democrats that supported the IWR and NOT a blanket condemnation of all Democrats? Are all Americans guilty of supporting George Bush's war because he was elected (debatable) or are the ones who voted for him at fault? Using Cindy's logic we all must be Bush supporters because, after all, he IS our President, our world representative, so we must have all supported him, right? :shrug: We certainly know that isn't the case. BOY do we know that isn't the case! We can't paint all Americans with that same broad stroke, it wouldn't be fair. So we shouldn't paint all Democrats with that same broad stroke either, should we?
Her blanket condemnation of the Democrats is uncalled for. I certainly think she has a right to do what she feels necessary to end this war ASAP. But I think sometimes she's a bit too reactionary, not thinking her statements through before delivering them: a "ready, fire, aim", scenario. And although an extremely intelligent woman she's surrounded herself (or they've surrounded her) with people that have their own agenda, that influence her into doing things that may be counterproductive to her cause. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are GOP, FBI or other disruptive operatives within her ranks. She can't vouch for each and every person that SAYS they're on her side and history tells us that this is a standard tactic of the opposition.
Although I support her and her cause I disagree with her on this. Saying this is the Democrats' war is disingenuous and ignores the real culprits behind the war that took her son. Perhaps she needs to step back for a moment, collect herself, reorganize her thoughts and then continue her fight, our fight.
Just another POV.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

164. She's Beginning To Move A Bit Too Far Left For My Liking. But God Bless Her Anyway.

I wish her well and may only good things come for her. But I find myself in months past just not being able to strongly support her (i.e. condoning) as I used to.

Thank you Cindy, for what you've done in the past and for what you've sacrificed. My heart goes out to your for your loss and I'm indebted to you for your service to the cause. But I think for now I may need to cut the cord. I think we've drifted too far apart.

God bless.

[Charlie Brown]

171. There is nothing productive about this rant

"In 2002, the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq."

Uh, no they didn't. 21 Dems in the Senate and a majority of Dems in the House voted against the IWR. The rest caved to the bait and switch tactics of the Republican President, who engineered the whole conflict.

"The shameless short-term purpose of the Democratic policy is to embarrass Republicans with a Senate filibuster of the supplemental, or a presidential veto, and the longer-term aim is to help Democrats in the 2008 election by saddling the Republicans with intervention in an untenable civil war."

Is Cindy aware of how the Democratic process works? In any coalition as large and diverse as the Dem Party, compromise and negotiations are an integral part of the lawmaking process. If Cindy believed that a Dem-controlled congress could pull some magic switch that would bring the troops home within two months of gaining power, she was not thinking realistically. Considering the military is under the President's ultimate control, and not that of Congress, her gripe against the now "Democrat's War" is downright bizarre. Does she no longer hold Bush accountable for what has happened?

"The Democrats failure to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections."

What is she saying, exactly? That a Republican-controlled Congress will be more likely to end the war after '08? That is some seriously misguided logic, considering they are the reps who are most firmly supporting the President's war and are dragging their feet on even the most vague commitment to a timetable for withdrawal.

I'm not even sure who exactly Cindy is yelling at here. She seems to fault anyone who concedes to a "slow bleed" policy of benchmarks, but even Jack Murtha, who has probably done more than anyone in Congress to work toward an end to the War, does not support an immediate pullout. Is Cindy yelling at him as well?

She has every right to speak her mind and say what she likes, but that is not the point. Her grievances, misguidedly directed at the Democrats, are ignorant of the reality that any professional rep lives in. The give-and-take negotiations of government are unchangeable and necessitated. Dems in Congress are trying to end the conflict the only practical way possible, by advancing firm deadlines and playing a strong hand by using spending bills (which "must" pass). I have no problem with criticism of the Democrats, but Cindy's rant completely ignores the indisputable Republican-origin of the War and throws stones at the Democrats for anything that is not an immediate pullout (which will never happen with the current representation in Congress). Cindy needs to prioritize her message and work to change the Party for the better, like many other groups have (civil rights groups, free-speech groups, etc.). If she declares "war" against the Democrats, she's only going to help put the real culprits of the Iraq War back into power, and that won't be good for anyone.

[Marrah_G]

174. Great post!

[EFerrari]

323. Aim low. n/t

[Terri S]

176. It may not be what you want.. it may not be what I want..

but no one can say Pelosi didn't listen to the American people...

Feb '07 USA Today Poll:

57% back a cap on troop levels, and 63% a timetable to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2008. However, 58% oppose denying funding for the additional troops.
=======================
From Bob Burnett @ Huffington Post:
The March 6th Gallup Poll ( http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1633&pg=1 ) results mirror the intent of H.R. 1591.

Fifty-nine percent of respondents oppose Bush's "surge" plan: his addition of 21,500 troops to those already in Iraq.
Fifty-seven percent support setting a cap on the number of troops in Iraq.

Sixty percent support establishing a "timetable" so that troops are withdrawn "by the end of next year."

Seventy-seven percent support "requiring U.S. troops to come home from Iraq if Iraq's leaders fail to meet promises to reduce violence there."

However, sixty-one percent of Gallup Poll respondents oppose "Denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq."
In other words, Americans don't want more troops sent to Iraq, believe there needs to be a plan to bring them home, but want to fully fund them while they are there: they want the contents of H.R. 1591.

Given the fact that H.R. 1591 so closely follows the reasoning of the American people, the wonder is that it did not pass by more than a six-vote margin (218-212).
==================

As for me, I'm wondering why so many people think Pelosi got a magic wand to go with her gavel. Like the hippies at Woodstock chanting, 'no rain, no rain', do those calling Democrats betrayers expect the sky to open up and the big bad clouds to go away if they just chant loud enough? I kinda wonder sometimes about the reality-based community. We all know the slim majority is a coalition of conservatives, moderates and liberals. We all know that even this less than perfect bill barely passed the House, is not expected to pass the Senate, and is already threatened with a veto by the REAL betrayer (that too many people keep losing sight of). If this had been an 0 funding, get out now bill, first of all, it would NOT reflect the American people's wishes--as shown in these and many other polls-- and second.. just what magic wand was going to make THAT a reality?

Cindy Sheehan has the right and obligation to freedom of speech. And everyone else has the same right and obligation.

I think her calling this "a Democrats war" is pretty appalling.

And I think too many are losing sight of who the real betrayer is here.

And that's my little bit of free speech.

Oh, one more thing...it's a bit amusing to show her quoting the gallup poll showing Congress' approval rating down for.... well, this is what the poll said:

"Bottom Line:
It is difficult to pinpoint precisely what is behind the drop off in optimism about Congress among Democrats. One possibility is that Democrats are disappointed that their party has been unable to do anything substantive about the Iraq war -- the dominant issue in last November's midterm elections. The increase in the price of gas and/or other economic concerns may also be a factor. Overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States and ratings of economic optimism are both down in the March Gallup Poll."

but she doesn't mention the gallup poll I did, showing this bill pretty much echoed what the American people want. Interesting.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

178. All this conventional wisdom BLATHER about what is "practical" and

"possible" and "how government really works" doesn't change the FACTS that

1) The U.S. is committing WAR CRIMES according to the Nuremberg standards

2) The unprovoked invasion/occupation (it's not really a war, is it?) is costing $250 million a day, so that you could fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on two days' worth of the Iraq occupation and Amtrak for four days' worth. It is bankrupting our nation and putting us in even further hock to the Chinese.

What if there were anti-genocide protestors in the Sudan, asking the opposition party to stop the killing in Darfur. Would they (would the international community?) be satisfied with the opposition in the Sudan saying, "Well, we'll keep funding the Jamjaweed as long as they agree to stop by September 2008"? Would they (would the international community?) be satisfied with excuses like, "You don't understand how our government works"?

No way! You'd say, "Find a way to make your government work differently. The hell with September 2008! Stop the killing today!"

It is utterly disgusting that the Dems have STARTED their alleged efforts to end the war with a compromise position. That is so weak and timid. It is despicable and shameful that the party leadership cannot gain support for the strongest possible condemnation of this military, moral, and political disaster in Iraq.

If they can't get together to condemn obvious evil in strong terms, what good are they? In cases like this, good intentions mean nothing. The Republicans are bullies, and like all bullies, they respect ONLY those who fight back.

[stirlingsliver]

185. And Five US Soldiers Were Reported Killed

Of all the costs invovled, the worst is the cost in Human Lives.

Even one more person's death because of this stupid, illegal, immoral war based on lies is one death too many.

Congress needs to do the moral thing, and end the war NOW.

Any more funding means more deaths.

Like the 5 soldiers killed this week-end.

[ClayZ]

193. " The U.S. is committing WAR CRIMES according to the Nuremberg standards"

:kick:

[elana i am]

207. I would agree with that...

I would never besmirch Cindy by accusing her of not being a good anti-war advocate. I consider whatever Cindy says or does to be mother's perrogative. She's entitled, for obvious reasons. And I don't see her as a Dem, a progressive or a liberal. I see her as strictly an anti-war activist. Beyond her anti-war stance I don't even know what her politics are. She's scratched our backs and we've scratched hers, but o my knowledge, our anti-war stances are the only thing she and I share in common. Cindy has one objective only, and if you aren't helping her achieve that ojective then you're impeding her.

I also happen to agree with her on this. The closest relation I can claim to know in Iraq at the moment is my brother-in-law's brother. I've never even met the guy. But that doesn't make this war any more or less of a moral and ethical abomination in my eyes.

I have standards and expectations of the people I help elect into office. I expect the Dems to at least adhere to their ethics and integrity. How much ethics and integrity is there in playing politics (and risking more lives) for only minimal incremental gains? It doesn't feel right to me. At all. They need to make a stand and shake off any culpability in the wholesale murder of Iraqis and Americans.

If they end up pissing in the wind, so be it. At least they won't have been party to the murder of innocent people and I can still respect them for their integrity.

[ProudDad]

318. But to our "conservative dem" friends

'extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!'

By "liberty", they mean the license to rape and pillage the resources of the Earth for the exclusive benefit of the United States of America.

Nuremberg and War Crimes; just a "quaint" set of old concepts. Nothing to be applied to the REAL world of realpolitik...

[Bake]

205. The Democrats' war? I DON"T THINK SO!

Cindy, I respect you (or at least I used to), but you're full of crap on this.

Bake

[blues90]

208. I can understand where Cindy is coming from

I did not loose a son in any war so this part of her motivation I can only feel from my perspective . However as the people did seem to feel that just getting dems in office was going to be enough were really fooling themselves , nothing is that simple , voters should have known this .

I don't have a dog in this fight , does anyone here ?

Cindy is just trying to follow through with what she has been working on for years now , she has been all over talking to people in the ME . She is trying to get an honest answer which we have not got from the dems so far . We get hearings and political games , we need an honest answer and the end plan . that's all Cindy wants as well as no more death . Who can blame her for that ?

[Garbo 2004]

210. Even blocking the supplemental funding bill wouldn't end the war right now or in the near future.

In general I don't have a particularly high regard for politicians or political parties given our present system and the role money, big money, plays in it. But there's a power struggle going on now between an Executive that does not recognize Constitutional limits on its power and a Congress that in the past ceded power to it. Taking back the power with Dems (who are not monolithic ) in a tenuous majority is not an easy matter and it won't be quick or pure.

The Dem leadership promoted a nonbinding resolution against the troop "surge" and it failed passage in the Senate. A nonbinding resolution. And it failed in the Senate.

As we've seen, the Dem "majority" in the Senate depends on the continued health of its members and Joe Lieberman. And 60 votes were required for passage of just the nonbinding resolution. That means not just Dem votes, but Repub votes too. There aren't 60 Dems in the Senate.

I suppose the "pure" thing to do for the Dem leadership would be to push a bill with that won't pass or block supplemental funding altogether. And the consequences in 2008 would be, both in terms of the war and the elections? Even not passing the supplemental won't end the war right now or in the near future.

Telling Dem pols that they shouldn't consider in their deliberations the matter of holding on to their tenuous majority in 2008 and increasing it, and also taking back the White House, may be the "pure" thing, but the reality is that they will and so should we. The tenuous majority in the Senate and the dependence on Repub votes indicates why, for example.

Even failure of a supplemental funding bill through Congress would not stop the war in the near future. Neither will sponsoring bills that also won't get through Congress as long as the GOP in the Senate can block them as they already have. As much as political strategy is understandably repugnant to many of us, in such circumstances it's also a reality in wresting power back from the "unitary executive" and the Republicans that should be acknowledged.

Either way, as much as Cindy criticizes the Dems, I don't see how her short-term and long-terms goals will be met even if the Dems all voted the way she wants them to on this measure.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

211. See my post #178

Whether they have the power or not, it is shameful that they can't even get their act together to PROPOSE ending the war now.

What kind of wimps base their moral judgments on what is "possible" now?

Haliburton and all the war profiteers are laughing up their sleeves right now with an alleged "opposition" party like this.

[stirlingsliver]

220. Well Said

It's shameful that those of us who really feel that Congress should take immediate steps to end the war now are called "liberal idiots" -- by our "friends".

[Garbo 2004]

242. So what's wanted is for Dems to propose ending the war right now, an

impossibility even if all Dems were on the same page, which they're simply not and won't be?

So the issue really is not about the actual ability of the Dems to end the war now, since they really can't. They don't have the votes for passage or a veto override. Are those who demand they end the war now being disingenuous if they know the Dems just don't have the power to do that? Even without the supplemental, the war won't simply stop. Not now, not in 6 months or more.

So in the meantime the Dems should just propose ending the war immediately as a gesture? And reveal how really fragmented they are when they won't get all the Dems on board with that. Talk about Repubs laughing.

It seems the Dems are attempting to do what is pragmatically and politically possible to try to leverage an end game for the war. Yeah, it's strategy. Maybe that's shameful to some, nevertheless since they can't just on their own end the war now or even in six months or more, they still do need to work in the realm of what's possible, however unacceptable and infuriating it is to many of us.

[The Straight Story]

271. The most simple solution:

Propose legislation to end it now, let dems vote to support it, let it fail - then we have a record of what we were willing to do and the rest of america can see that it was the RW who shot it down. Change it a little, put it in the next day and keep going until a comprise is reached. In the end, people will see where folks stand on the issues.

'Symbolic' means a lot to some people, like voters. If you lose and you never bothered to stand your ground, how will that help to garner respect for your position?

[Garbo 2004]

328. Except,. again, in reality it wouldn't be just Repubs that would vote against such a bill

if it were brought to a floor vote in both houses. I doubt such a bill would pass either house. And that would be more than merely symbolic in terms of illustrating the fragmentation of the Dems in Congress.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

329. If the Dems can't get a unanimous vote on a "stop the war" bill,

a REAL "stop the war" bill, then there is something seriously wrong with them. What kind of moral midgets are in that Congress anyway? Are they sure they're in the right party?

[Garbo 2004]

346. The House Dems didn't get a unanimous Dem vote on the nonbinding resolution

against the troop escalation which was overtly a merely symbolic measure.

A real bill to end the war ASAP would not fare as well as the nonbinding resolution IMO. Again, the Dems in Congress are not a monolithic entity. Are they all progressive, liberal? No. Would all Dems in Congress vote to end the war now, symbolically or otherwise? No. We already know that, don't we? Why do people seem to think otherwise?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

348. The Dems who didn't vote for the latest bill were the ones who thought it

was too wimpy.

[Garbo 2004]

351. Not all of the 14 Dems who voted against the House bill were those who thought the bill

was too wimpy. Of the 14, from what I've read, 8 voted against the bill because they didn't want to continue to fund the war and the bill wasnt't strong enough.

A seriously stronger bill might get those 8 votes plus Stark IIRC who didn't vote either way, but there would be more no votes against it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

352. This is the best strategy on this thread

Too bad you are not in Congress :)

[bling bling]

325. Worse -- Haliburton is laughing even harder right now that we're the alleged "majority" party!

On this issue, you and I seem to be in complete agreement. I too am disappointed that the Democrats aren't making more attempts to bypass precedent and protocol and get this crisis under control. They're treating it like any other issue they may deal with but this isn't about prescription drugs, it's not about tax cuts for the wealthy, it's an issue that literally affects life and death and their leadership now will impact our country and the rest of the world for decades to come.

I agree completely with your Genocide analogy upthread.

Why is it that the Republicans can fly Bush in on Air Force One at midnight to creatively and boldly push through legislation about brain-dead Terri Schaivo but we're not supposed to expect the Dems to push for something bold when it comes to ending an illegal war?

The Republicans are the real victors here. They want out of Iraq too. So this works out perfectly for them and they didn't have to give up anything or really risk anything either. The Dems probably saved a lot of Republicans their jobs by writing this bill for them to vote on. AND, the added-value for their party is that Dick Cheney still uses this bill that gives over a year and billions to the war as ammo to criticize the Dems as being non-supportive of the troops. What could be better??

[bvar22]

258. Since you convincingly argue that the WAR will continue....

...no matter what the Dems do, why not STAND UP and do the RIGHT thing?

I would REALLY like to see how the votes stack up.


The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.


Iraq War Resolution

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu


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.

[ripken08]

223. I simply disagree

With Cindy. First of all, I think the democrats plan are more in line with American Voters. An Overwhelming majority of American do not want to pull out tomorrow, even though they voted for democrats. Democrats did not betray anybody, but I do feel betrayed by people like Cindy Sheehan and others who speak against the democratic party when they are only being realistic.

[Jcrowley]

224. Cindy gets it

This was not an anti-war bill in any respect. It's really bizarre that anyone could possibly even think that. Have people somehow suspended their critical faculties out of some blind loyalty?

WTF. $124 billion more going to the War Machine and part of this is to expand the "effort" in Afghanistan and the caveats require that the "Iraqi Government", there is no such thing, sign off on the Oil contracts as demanded by Western (US) energy interests and this is some sort of step forward?

It's a mystery. Some people here are simply not thinking clearly and have an utterly ahistorical interpretation of events.

[bvar22]

249. I agree with you.

How can any sane person believe that this bill moves us closer to PEACE? :shrug:

The simple facts are that this bill guarantees that the WAR will continue for at least two more years, and that the US intends to stay in Iraq permanently with the APPROVAL and SUPPORT of the Democratic Party Leadership.

What am I missing?

I stand with Cindy and Dennis on this.

[Jcrowley]

252. It really does stretch all belief

How is it that people can come to ignore the very illogic of the statements related to this bill let alone the actual content of the bill.

An interesting question to me is how did people get to the point where they could simply get in line and accept what their Reps say when what is staring them in the face point blank is in direct contrast with that.

Very disturbing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

267. Yes it is disturbing

We are seeing partisan politics at its finest hour here today. What blows my mind is that we who support Cindy are being called koolaid drinkers while they fail to see that their blind loyalty to the Democratic party is blinding them to the reality that their (our?) party doesn't seem too interested in ending this damn war.

[Nutmegger]

225. I will always stand with Cindy Sheehan.

:kick:

[AnOhioan]

226. Bravo Ms. Sheehan

[The Witch]

261. There's room for both Cindy and Pelosi in this party, guys.

If we didn't have people like Cindy constantly pushing for more, then Pelosi would never have made the gains she's made. This is playing out the way it needs to. Yes, I too want the war to end tomorrow. And I desperately wish no more lives could be lost. But Cindy is helping Congress here. She's the kind of feet-to-the-fire pressure we need. We need to pull the center back from the right where it's been hiding because people with "far-left" viewpoints haven't been voicing their opinions. Cindy's condemnation of the Democrats here is putting the pressure where it needs to be, helping to shift the debate further left. And that's going to get our troops home.

Big tent. Everyone has their role to play here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

269. You are a pretty smart witch

:hi:

[EFerrari]

321. Exactly. n/t

[SaneInSC]

265. I for one

I for one just wish the congresspeople would act like rational thinkers who have the best interests of the majority of americans at heart. Tired of the games. Tired of the party labels. I don't care who affects positive policy changes for us, just as long as they do it. A democrat or republican doesn't do anything for us..a person does. What o' what would we ever do if there weren't party labels..we would all burst into flames!/cry ....or maybe people would actually have to ask candidates their positions and force a lot of thinking on both ends. At the end of the day, good people are all thats required..forget the labels and the affiliations, for they only serve to make us think less. I support ending this war immediately..however that happens.

Just as the last batch of elected officials were (booted) held to account, so too may this current crop of winners.

[EFerrari]

277. K&R in protest of the same mentality that allowed first responders

in New York to die from negligence and our people in NOLA when the White House knew the levees were breeched. And our troops, sacrificed to Halliburton. Shame, shame.

Enough is effen' enough.

Go, Cindy, we're right here beside you.

[upi402]

282. I agree, it's all linked

to blinding arrogance and greed run rampant by power-drunk lowlifes.

Go Cindy!

[omega minimo]

283. Eh, the next war will make all this quibbling moot anyways

"It also will permit the Bush Administration to initiate a war with Iran without Congressional oversight."

:nuke:

Escalation, permanent war, unaccountable representatives, domestic agenda in freefall, black box voting............................ yep, there's that giant sucking sound of millions more Americans tuning out....................................................

[Kelly Rupert]

285. Cindy Sheehan certainly has betrayed America and her cause

A knife in the back of the Democrats after they passed the first proactive legislation in Iraq--legislation supported by 59% of America--is less than helpful.

[Forkboy]

288. Oh fer christ's sake

:eyes:

[Kelly Rupert]

293. That's pretty much how most people react to her n/t

[Forkboy]

297. The difference is she didn't deserve hers.

[Puglover]

342. No,

that's pretty much how you react to her. :eyes: I'm loving how the Cindy detractors in this thread are using broad brush smears like this.

"She does more harm then good"

nothing to back it up, just smears.

Now quick Kelly. Post an internet poll to squash me. :scared:

[proud2BlibKansan]

354. "Most people" ??

Which "most people"??

[mmonk]

291. It has a few problems. No need to pretend it gets the job done.

[EFerrari]

295. What utter cr@p.

Nancy got her scalp. The occupation goes on.

[babylonsister]

304. Disgusting post! Cindy Sheehan was the spark that got so many

people talking about this war, pros and cons, whether you want to admit that or not!
How dare you say she betrayed anyone! This admin betrayed her by taking her son.
You can talk about her politics, but don't think her actions have been done to 'betray' the Dems.
She wants an end to the damn war, as do 'most' of us.

[proud2BlibKansan]

355. This blows my mind, Sister

Why does Cindy Sheehan owe a damn thing to the Democratic party? From the responses here, I take it she is supposed to blindly worship at the altar of Pelosi! And because she is challenging the Dems to do more than what we got out of them Friday, she is now considered a traitor, a bad person. Blows my fucking mind.

[Marrah_G]

359. She doesn't owe the Dems anything

And frankly we aren't required to worship every word uttered from her lips. Some of us here strongly disagree with some of the things she has said lately as is our right. This is a Democratic message board with a post from an independant war protester slamming the dems and pinning the war on them. So yes, many of us said "whoa there Cindy, I think you are way off on this". That response brought out her friends and fans alike all completely "disgusted and shocked" at how anyone could have the NERVE to disagree with the infallable Ms Sheehan. If you don't think your posts come off like that go back and read through them.

Look, I am sorry her son was killed, I have friends and a brother of my own in the ME now. I hate this fucking war. Shit, it seems like for the last 15 years I have had either a friend or brother in either Bosnia, Gulf 1, Somalia, Afganistan or Iraq on any given day. I love her protests and marches and I admire the passion she has for the anti-war movement. However I DO disagree with some things she has been saying and frankly that is my right to disagree and my right to voice that disagreement when her words are posted on this board. Or do I only have that right if my brother comes home in a body bag?

People here on all sides need to learn to talk to each other instead of screaming at each other.

[proud2BlibKansan]

360. Of course you have the right to speak out

so does Cindy and so do all of us.

I believe what upsets many of us who are loyal to Cindy are the personal slams, insults, cursing (at least 2 people in this thread have said "Fuck off Cindy") and the notion that she has no right to criticize Democrats or no understanding of the political process.

This is not the first 'let's slam Cindy' thread. So none of us are overrreacting. I certainly don't expect DUers to bow down and worship anyone, but I will jump up to defend a woman I greatly admire when she is insulted in the manner that she has been here lately.

Yes, she said some harsh things. Yes, she is very critical of Democrats. But I can't see how that deserves the insults she has received here. And, FYI, those insults began long before she publicly criticized Democrats. The first time I remember seeing this hate for Cindy here was 9 months ago, when she began her fast last summer.

It is perfectly okay to disagree with Cindy. But saying she has lost her mind (no, she lost her son - not her mind), doesn't know what she is talking about (she most certainly does), and/or cursing her are unacceptable forms of criticism. And yes, because she has a loyal group of followers here on DU, we will defend her when she is slammed.

[Marrah_G]

362. I agree

The insulting language was not right...from either side. Maybe next time it will be a politer discourse, at least I hope it will be.

[orleans]

301. helderheid, i think you should get the award for posting the most

controversial thread in the past ... week, month, year to date?

damn! so many deletes, so many mods, my head is spinning.

(therefore, i will not be commenting on the content of the op--except to say: wow. and thanks for posting this)

[EFerrari]

303. I think I better go play Scrabble with myself.

I've been to so many demonstrations this month, my house looks like it's been abandoned. And, I'm tired as hell.

Not a good place from which to read this thread.

Thanks, orleans.

[walldude]

312. Hey kiddo, there is no good place from which to read

this thread.. I've tried twice today and gave up both times...

[EFerrari]

316. Hey, walldude, thanks for the reality check.

:hi:

[Forkboy]

313. What's "pukefest" worth in Scrabble?

:)

[EFerrari]

317. Now, that's funny.

:rofl:

[unkachuck]

315. thank you, Cindy....

....and may God bless....

[ProudDad]

319. Now HERE'S the bill they could have gotten behind

"House bill seeks to rescind Iraq war authorization"

Woolsey’s bill, H.R. 5875, would declare that the United States has been engaged in an occupation of Iraq for more than three years — since President Bush’s May 1, 2003, pronouncement that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” — that has weakened America militarily and economically, diminished its role in the world and provoked a bloody and ongoing civil war in Iraq.

In stating that it is U.S. policy to end the occupation, the bill would rescind the resolution, pushed through Congress in the run-up to the 2002 midterm elections, that originally authorized Bush to commit American forces to Iraq.

“It’s become very clear that we’re not in war,” Woolsey explained last week. “We’re occupying Iraq and the president never came to us and asked us for permission.”

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House_bill_seeks_to_rescind_Iraq_0801.html

[EFerrari]

320. Thank you, Cindy, for taking your grief and using it to save this country.

Thank you for speaking up when most people didn't or wouldn't because they were afraid or numb.

Thank you for enduring the criticism of people who couldn't be bothered to do the bloody math. .The terrible, terrible math.

Thank you for using your mother's heart to teach us integrity and consistency and thank you for not giving up on us. My children won't go to Iraq but I don't want to live in a world where ANYONE'S children are sacrificed to Halliburton. Where their service is window dressing for war profiteers.

You know that night they arrested you for wearing a t-shirt with the numbers of our "casualties" (as if any loss is "casual")? I got really mad at myself because I wasn't with you and because I couldn't raise hell with these bullies that think they can shut us up.

They can't. You've lit a fire that won't be put out.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Beth

[krkaufman]

322. What? This gal is starting to sound like Nader.

"In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House."

Not even worth correcting, so bereft of reality.

[EFerrari]

324. So bereft of reality, all the polls support this opinion.

Try again.

[OneBlueSky]

327. I'm with Cindy . . . I'm sick to death of toothless bills passed so that Members can say . . .

"See, we did something!" . . . when in fact they didn't do shit . . .

[reprehensor]

332. "You forgot Poland."

I mean, MoveOn;

"MoveOn is now raising funds from antiwar supporters to attack Senate opposition to the supplemental., but the activist community is now aware that MoveOn is not the cathartic needed to address Democratic Party constipation. There is at least one Democratic senator, Russ Feingold, who could oppose the funding farce. MoveOn is an autocratic organization run by a small group of elitist wannabe power-brokers; it cannot be reformed, but you can let their politburo know your feelings [email protected], [email protected] , [email protected], and you can unsubscribe! You also can refuse to lend them your name (their petitions are mainly for fund-raising), your efforts, and your money, and instead join with one of the many active progressive and antiwar organizations (check out United for Peace and Justice- UFPJ for a detailed listing of local and national groups, which incidentally does not include MoveOn). None of the MoveOn leadership has served their country in the armed forces; like Dick Cheney and 95% of Congress they had more important things to do, which did not and do not include supporting the troops that are in harms way."

Thanks for posting this.

Russian sources are saying that a "sneak attack" on Iran has already been planned, it's just not that "sneaky" anymore;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=152039&mesg_id=152039

[Leopolds Ghost]

333. Do fans of this bill REALIZE that Pelosi/Hillary/Kerry are calling for permanent presence of troops?

To defend, as Hillary called it, "vital national security interests" inside Iraq (i.e. oil)

while standing aside from the ethnic cleansing and looting?

How is this any different from what BUSH wants?

[Leopolds Ghost]

337. Do fans of this bill REALIZE that it has no more chance of becoming law than a hard antiwar measure?

The supporters of the bill, including Pelosi, Hillary, Kerry, Obama,

Are saying that this bill is more pragmatic:

NOT because Bush might sign it, (he won't)

NOT because it might get thru Congress before Bush vetoes it,

thereby making Congress look like
they "did something on their end".

NOT because it's more pragmatic to vote for something that a
majority of those polled (uninformed) can agree with,

...

but because a permanent troop presence is the only pragmatic solution in their eyes.

(According to Hillary and now Kerry and possibly Obama.)

This is why they look down on the antiwar left as "uneducated morons" and complain that they don't understand the nuances of statecraft, such as maintaining the oil supply to our country at present levels no matter what. Compared to the Carter era, the Dems in power today are pro-road and pro-oil.

[rodeodance]

341. thanks cindy. --as Russ Feingold said---This will be the Dems war unless

Congress gets assertive (gets some balls my words)

[rodeodance]

343. She is right about this:

In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House. The Democrats 2007 policy is equally political, and may have the paradoxical effect of producing Republican victories in 2008. The prolongation of the occupation is now opposed by two-thirds of all Americans; we want our troops safely home by this Christmas, not political chicanery. As a consequence Americans now think even more poorly of Congress than ever; the failure to withdraw from Iraq dropped Democratic support of Congress from 44% to 33% according to the latest Gallup poll. The Democrats failure to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections........

[cgrindley]

347. Good for you, Cindy

The vote to fund the war was bullshit.

It was a vote *for* war. There's no other way to spin it.

[LWolf]

353. Here comes the pack, lol.

I've recently been pondering human nature. Pack/herd instinct. I can be at least somewhat objective because, due to an unusual family circumstance and life, I don't belong to any greater pack. I really am a "lone wolf."

I've seen that people are pack/herd animals to the core. That, no matter their belief system, politics, etc., they feel the need to belong to a group. Group identity trumps everything else in the end.

Group identity can come from nationality, faith, ethnicity, profession, politics, social class, culture, and I'm sure much more. What I notice about that identity, coming from someone who does not identify with any group other than the 4 other humans that make up my whole nuclear and extended family, is that group identity trumps all. It trumps truth, honesty, integrity, and common sense. A group will be willing to go along with an idea or a person or a group that seems to have an affinity, until that idea, person, or group threatens the group identity.

The Democratic Party is just such a group. It comes complete with loyalty oaths, group-think, and rationalization of words, actions, votes, etc. that directly conflict with supposed ideals.

It no longer surprises me that party loyalty is more important than the supposed ideals that the party is supposed to represent. I am a registered Democrat, but I've never put party before principle.

Just like any other political party, I will never take anything any Democrat says at face value. I will always be looking for the spin, the rhetoric, the talking points, the manipulation. Living, breathing, evolving evidence that Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No wonder I'm a lone wolf. While I celebrate what I consider to be the best of my species' qualities, I cannot reconcile myself to the worst.

I will not put party before principles. I am glad that there are those like Cindy Sheehan, from all groups, willing to stand on principle.

The only point, in my lone opinion, of a "group" is to nurture and defend principles.

[proud2BlibKansan]

356. And groups fail when

they fail to acknowledge the value of each individual that makes up the group. Solidarity is not nearly as important as the willingness of individuals to be a part of the group.

I am a Democrat because I think the party best represents my values. I do not have the political values I do because they are Democratic party values. And I will NEVER change my values because I want to fit in better with the party.

[LWolf]

367. You put that very well.

Not that I'm surprised.

;)

[ends_dont_justify]

370. I have always believed senators should be set up for unique views, not party views

And we would be best served with an odd amount of those with individual ideals, rather than those who lobby to the group standard. I think your view is a good representation of why that would work; atleast someone out there could represent us then and we wouldn't need to rely on 80% jerks and 20% like minded just to try to get our views across.

[kiteinthewind]

371. Hey, Proud! I keep hearin' Joe's song, Divide and Conquer, when I look at this thread! I think I am

gonna ask him to sing that Sat. nite at WWWD?
 
We all once lived in tribes
In peace and unified
Surviving off of what abundant earth could provide
But some weren’t satisfied
They started conquering folks
Implemented governments to oppress and control
 
Unpiled empires of power and greed
Now a few live in excess and the rest are in need
But simply beating some and bribing others couldn’t succeed
They needed hate to separate and some fear to feed
 
See we’re inclined to be kind and think from the heart
So they devised new systems that would keep us apart
They invented class, invented race, gender and religion
With precision, they conquer though division
 

Divide and Conquer
Separate and control
Keep us fighting each other
‘Cause that’s the Empire’s goal
So don’t look behind the curtain
Don’t follow the strings
Keep us fighting the symptoms
While they spread the disease


Western colonists erased the tribal way of life
Invented states to separate by artificial lines
Warring tribes grouped together to destabilize
Pitt the natives on each other, keep enemy disguised
 
Now there’s genocide, and intertribal war
Postcolonial Rwanda, Uganda and Darfur
And the west looks on in impotence like “what can we do?”
When it was us who painted hate between Tootsie and Hutu
 
When it was us who persecuted Jews and made them insecure
And now our puppet state of Israel our dominance ensures
US occupation Middle East to make the oil flow
Keep the Arabs fighting Jews or other Arabs, PLO
 
Keep the Sunni fighting Shia and the Christians and Kurds
An unstable Iraq, resistance cracked fractured
Meanwhile Europeans bicker over tariffs and cows
And progressive movements split "who’s more radical than thou?"
 
Green or democrat, liberal or anarchist
Vegetarian or vegan, militant or pacifist
Go down the list of shit that keeps us fractured and frail
While the cops sit back and laugh as our movement derails
 
Never fails to topple the struggle from within
We crumble because we couldn’t blend
 
Chorus
 
The peace movement’s racist
Anti-racist groups are sexist
Labor’s homophobic
Gay-rights groups are classist
Environmentalists fight natives
And the natives and blacks
Mexicans, Koreans, Asian, Arab attacks
It's misplaced aggression, anger and rage
They misdirect our attention to fellow rats in our cage
 
And well-intentioned white liberals wanting to do something
Repeat cycles of oppression that are worse than doing nothing
It’s a tenuous role to try and join with the oppressed
We divide the revolution behaving imperialist
 
Lets build a movement that is based in liberation for all
One by one they pick us off, and divided we fall
Let’s break the concrete from the walls, let’s build bridges
Pickup the pieces from all our shattered hopes and build wishes
’Cause ingredients are bland but the dish is delicious
Let’s be swimming in schools of flanked fishes
 
Let’s unite and fight our enemy’s in sight
We share a common plight
Take my hand and hold it tight
In the street, our feet, will beat them to retreat
People united, will never be defeated!

The people united, will never be defeated!
 
Don’t let them divide and conquer separate and control
Let’s band together and make the empire fall
Let’s look behind the curtain
Let’s follow the strings
No more fighting the symptoms and let’s kill the disease

Let’s smash the system cause it’s the disease

:toast:

[ends_dont_justify]

369. Wow, what the hell?

Everyone flips out and starts attacking eachother when st cindy is talked about? Start toting on like they have lost children in the war and that their lives are in shambles because cindy's is? It's like they're vicariously living AS cindy sheehan through the way they see her on the television. I totally sympathize with those who really have lost; or may lost, family members in this. I have a friend shipped out to iraq who I've known for a very long time and I'll be pissed off as all hell if I lose him, but attacking other people isn't going to bring him back. Finding strategies to get our message across to the lesser of two evils in congress is the only way we're going to do something and pretending we're doing good by pretending WE are cindy sheehan is not going to end the carnage.

It's amazing and tragic that, instead of giving advice or ideas to stop this war, to end as much bloodshed as possible, to take the right positions or ourselves work out withdrawl plans; that most people will instead try to bully people over the internet because their icon's name was messed with. Some people can't rationalize that sometimes the few must be sacrificed for the many. I am NOT in support of the 18 month plan, but so long as we're all barbarians with clubs flailing about how much we disagree with our elected officials and so long as we are lacking the capability to realize that immediate withdrawl will NOT bring back those already deceased; we're nothing more, as a group, than a chicken with its head cut off and will find no substantial gains in our pandering.