<p>Cindy Sheehan announced her “retirement” today from politics, basically worn and beaten from the process. </p>
<p>And May marks the month with the most significant loss of U.S. forces in Iraq this calendar year, including 10 Americans killed on Memorial Day. </p>
<p>In a fiasco that has lasted about as long as WWII with no end in sight…</p>
<p>I have been so mad at the Democrats for giving in on the Iraq war funding that it has been hard to think about it, much less post something. But the NeoCons did their demonization trick again, lashing out at those who would bring the troops home now or on some timetable. Cindy Sheehan was one of those vilified and demonized and no wonder she’s “retiring.”</p>
<p>Bush has emptied the US Treasury, used up the military (ready to start drafting policemen and boy scouts next?), made enemies around the world, made our country much less safe, and has instituted policies which will take years to undo, which will start just as soon as the Three-Monkey Party (Hear-No-Evil, See-No-Evil, Our-s**t-don’t-stink Republicans) are thrown overboard.</p>
<p>It’s absolutely apparent that we WILL pull out (at some point we run out of money and/or soldiers). All of the troops who die from now until the end will die to save some immediate political face for the politicians. A sick, sick, sick waste of lives.</p>
<p>Some things are so important, that it doesn’t make sense to discuss issues around the edges, trying to find what’s politically expedient.</p>
<p>“Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?”</p>
<p>I feel bad for Cindy Sheehan. I mean, her life is wrecked, and she got so little support from the rest of America. But, really, that’s not surprising - so few Americans are directly affected by this war. And, thanks to what is essentially a complete news blackout, there isn’t a whole lot of awareness or empathy for those who are really making the sacrifices.</p>
<p>I really hope she can put together some sort of life for herself. She seems like a very nice woman who deserves some peace and, hopefully, someday she will be recognized for what she was - a brave person who stood up to a President, spoke the truth, and sacrificed a great deal to do so.</p>
<p>In the 60s, college students opposed the war because they were the ones being drafted. Now, it’s actually not surprising that no one is standing with Cindy Sheehan. There were a few loud protesters at the beginning of the war–I remember someone chained herself to the White House gate. </p>
<p>Most people were apathetic, though in our defense, it did seem like resistance was futile. Bush wouldn’t listen to his wisest advisors, and the war machine just rolled on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Poor little Democrats, manipulated into agreement again by those bad ol’ NeoCons. </p>
<p>Doesn’t work, does it? Time to recognize that the Democrat party doesn’t represent your views any more than the Republicans do. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not your friends.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, do you think referring to terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq and killed and tortured civillians in an attempt to incite sectarian violence as “freedom fighters” is speaking the truth? Were it not for her “freedom fighters” Iraq would be a lot more peaceful today.</p>
<p>SOme of your posts are so not wirth the time…she did more and sacificed more than many of you big talkers ever did</p>
<p>and you know, you all still defending this war, ad how well its going?</p>
<p>didn’t think so</p>
<p>My heart goes out to Cindy Sheehan. And my dissatisfaction goes out to the democrats for caving in to Bush. </p>
<p>Finally, as of last week, I agree with Jimmy Carter on one thing…</p>
<p>Of course no one stood up with her. It is futile and a waste of time.</p>
<p>Bush doesn’t listen to anyone, not even his own bi-partisan panel, his generals, his advisors. He surely hasn’t listened to the will of the American people, who spoke last November in favor of getting out of this war debacle.</p>
<p>No one will take to the streets unless he calls a draft. Then…whoa Nellie. The streets will be filled.</p>
<p>Good Riddance! I find it hard to believe anyone took her seriously after she called the type of people who killed her son “freedom fighters.” I thought I would die laughing when she demanded that the military get out of New Orleans right after Katrina. The military was the only government institution that worked in New Orleans. She is a loon and I am glad to see her go.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re seriously suggesting that the search and rescue teams of the local wildlife and fisheries weren’t “working”??? Where on earth did you get this extensive knowledge of their activities?</p>
<p>Yes, having the military in place (once FEMA agreed to let search and rescue resume) saved a lot of lives, but that’s no excuse to smear the wildlife and fisheries.</p>
<p>Wasn’t “freedon fighters” what Ronald Reagan dubbed the Taliban? Or did I get that mixed up, too?</p>
<p>Normally, or so the conventional wisdom says, a President takes a nation to war. Bush – though not the first – has sent the military to war. The nation has been insulated from the ill effects of the war. People slap a magnetic yellow ribbon on the car that says, “Support Our Troops,” and that’s what passes for a war effort. Calling for the troops to come home gets you classified as being unpatriotic, liberal (in the pejorative sense), and – ironically enough – unsupportive of the troops. </p>
<p>There’s no rationing or sacrifice that’s been imposed upon the general public to pay for the freedoms that our troops alone have been asked to fight for. All you have to do is express outrage and indignation at those who oppose the war to show that you support the war effort and the troops. Wars are bizarre creatures, but as wars go this one takes the cake. It’s as if it’s being run by large PR firms instead of actual military commanders. </p>
<p>As much as I despised how Bill Clinton calculated his every move on the basis of the overnight polls, I’m at the point of apoplexy over how the Bush Administration seems to run the war from the same Gallup/Harris/Zogby Situation Room that Clinton used to formulate his domestic policy. With Bush’s approval ratings in the can, it should be no surprise that, with each passing week, the prospect for “victory” looks increasingly dim and the hope for “escape” becomes increasingly appealing.</p>
<p>Cindy Sheehan was able to testify to this early on, when only a handful of Americans – of which I was not a part – could understand her message. You’d think that it would give her some measure of solace to know that many more Americans “get” what she was saying. But the fact of the matter is that while she was ahead of the curve, she was not a force that brought people over. </p>
<p>Sheehan was badly exploited early on by the most radical voices on the left and instead of being a bridge that reached across to those on the right who had trouble opposing the war because of all the stigma, she – and her hardcore leftwing handlers – sent out shrill, accusatory messages that actually built walls and fostered an even greater divide. The anti-war effort didn’t need another confrontational radical voice. It needed a Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a dead soldier who could credibly reach out to people who might oppose the war without having to adopt all the other uncomfortable baggage of the radical left. Instead of reaching out to Middle America, Sheehan reached out to President Chavez of Venezuela. </p>
<p>And what was with her wearing that “in your face” t-shirt to the State of the Union? She got ejected (wrongly), but imagine how much more dramatic it would have been if she had worn a black dress and a veil and stared down at the man she holds responsible for her son’s death! Nah, instead she wore a stupid t-shirt with a death count and expanded the gap between the anti-war faction and Middle America. Overnight, she went from being an anti-war activist to a posterwoman for free speech.</p>
<p>I can understand why Cindy Sheehan is retiring. She was ineffectual despite having so much potential to do good. I give her credit for seeing a reality that took so many more Americans far too long to come to grips with. I accuse her handlers for co-opting her simple, widely appealing message to all their other causes in a way that made her more of an obstacle to shifting American sentiment than a true force for change.</p>
<p>I guess I must be one of the few to note a couple of things:</p>
<p>1) The Dems had little leverage with such small margins of majority in Congress.</p>
<p>2) They know that if they get too far out in front, they’ll be painted as the people who lost a war that otherwise could have been won. (If you watch Glenn Beck, for instance, talk about how the problem with Vietnam was only that the politicians got in the way, you’ll know what I am talking about. Misinformation without historical sense will make this a democratic defeat very quickly, which by the way will increase the likelihood of our doing a stupid thing like this again soon because it will embolden chickenhawks of either party.)</p>
<p>The Dems need to show backbone in the following way:</p>
<p>1) Keep in the discourse the following things:</p>
<p>a) What were the original goals for this war by those who pushed for it?</p>
<p>b) What outcome are we currently shooting for?
What precisely defines the endpoint?</p>
<p>The public needs to be educated. This war was started under false pretenses with an expectation by its planners that it would be quick and lead to an easy occupation that would give way to democracy and a capitalist society in the midst of the Arab world.</p>
<p>We are so far from achieving these aims, it’s utterly pathetic. And now, a dreadful unintended consequence of this stupidly conceived and poorly executed war – the fact that Al Qaeda is using Iraq as one of its many fronts against us – is being used by this Administration as a reason to be, and indeed stay, in Iraq.</p>
<p>It is pathetic.</p>
<p>Actually, razorsharp, I will claim the mantle of “loon” because I have not worked hard enough to stop the Iraq War. I knew it would only lead to disaster from the moment the idea was first uttered from our president’s lips, and, although I have regularly tried to make my opposition to the war known to my Congress members and others, I have failed our soldiers (including my nephew, currently serving for the third time) and the Iraqi people. Among other reasons, I let my responsibilities to my family, my job, my community and my friends stand in the way of my ability to act on my deep belief that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Now, and in the coming years, I must atone for that fact. </p>
<p>Cindy Sheehan, by contrast, can hold her head high because, as much as any other American, she worked day and night since her son was killed to end this horrendous war. She was unwavering in her belief that the Iraq War was immoral, illegal and unwinnable. Despite the barrage of constant criticism from every quarter day in and day out, she showed the courage of her convictions. So, unlike you, I am extremely sad to see her go.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be so hard on yourself. The simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing anyone can do to stop George Bush’s war until George Bush is no longer President.</p>
<p>If the Baker/Hamilton life preserver his dad threw him didn’t convince Bush, nothing will. It’s just one of those unfortunate times when the only available option is to focus on the election of November 2008.</p>
<p>It breaks my heart to see what Bush is doing to our troops. They deserve better.</p>
<p>
And where was your heart when you wrote this on October 11, 2004:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Overthrowing a thug like Saddam was the right thing to do? Rumsfeld eloquent? Are you sure you are not a Neocon (whatever that is)?</p>
<p>“Wasn’t “freedon fighters” what Ronald Reagan dubbed the Taliban? Or did I get that mixed up, too?”</p>
<p>Yes you did get that wrong too. Reagan left office in 1989 the same year the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. The Talian didn’t emerge until 1994 and were backed by Pakistan. </p>
<p>The Reagan administration threw most of their support during the Soviet occupation to Ahmed Shah Massoud who was assassinated by Taliban posing as journalists in 2001.</p>
<p>Here is another great quote from the wise Interesteddad from July 3, 2003.
</p>
<p>Use and/or imminent threat of US power to counter fundamentalist Islamic movements? Oh my!</p>