Cindy Sheehan "retires"

[razorsharp]

<p>

Clinton was a member of the minority party (i.e. no power to do anything).

She could have filibustered? If she was half the leader she says she is, she would have done so.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

I am not naive at all. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitute gives Congress the power to declare war. The president does not have the power to declare war. A better argument would be that Congress is more responsible for the Iraq war since only Congress can declare war. Bush could not have engaged in war with Iraq without the approval of Congress. </p>

<p>Are you trying to re-write the constitution?

</p>

<p>Do you really think Congress initiated this war? 'Cause that’s what you are clearly implying.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>I am saying Congress is equal to the President and your suggestion that Congress is some how less responsible than the President is simply wrong. I am also saying you can’t bash the President unless you also bash those in Congress who voted for the war. They are all the same. They had the same intelligence, they had the same debates, and they made the same decision. When you separate out the President for additional condemnation, you are revealing your personal political (probably liberal) agenda.</p>

[carlmom]

<p>We are all in this together. Like I wrote before, I never supported this war. I knew in my gut (and my head) that this war would prove a disaster on all fronts. That’s why I got on a bus at 11 p.m. one night in October 2001 and, along with a bunch of college students, political activists and gray-headed baby boomers that looked a lot like me, rode from Chicago to Washington D.C. to attend a huge anti-war demonstration. Guess what? Most arguments all of you are making on this board now were made by the speakers at that rally back then. What did they know that may of you apparently didn’t know? In the simplest terms, they knew that Iraq was a fragile state, that oil was the real issue and that no good could come of our inserting ourselves militarily in the volatile Middle East. They also predicted that, at a minimum, a war on Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, irrespective of the loss of life on both sides. As I listened to the speakers that fall day, I had to agree with most of their predictions. Why? Because I had done my homework. For several months I read what Middle East experts like Juan Cole were writing about the repercussions of invading Iraq. I went to the library, utilized “the google,” and sought out wise books about the folly of war.</p>

<p>Yet, as I wrote in an earlier post, the fact that I knew the war was going to turn out this way doesn’t absolve me of anything. All of this talk about “taking responsibility” is a red herring. The time has come to stop the finger-pointing and the hand-wringing. We must act. The onus is on each of us as blood is on all of our hands.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

The onus is on each of us as blood is on all of our hands.

I don’t believe blood is on your hands; but it is on Hillary Clinton’s hands and on mine.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>Declared war?</p>

<p>The last time the United States made a formal declaration of war was June 5, 1942.</p>

<p>Fillibuster?</p>

<p>How could any Senator have fillibustered the authorization act when the vote was 77-23? Note that Bush was invading Iraq whether the Senate authorized it or not. The President (aka “Commander Guy”) has the authority to commit US forces without Congressional approval.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

A better argument would be that Congress is more responsible for the Iraq war

</p>

<p>

I am saying Congress is equal to the President and your suggestion that Congress is some how less responsible than the President is simply wrong.

</p>

<p>Which is it? As I said, you’re naive – or something more willful – about presidential power and authority, particularly as it played out in that context. Or more likely, you’re just trying to spread the greater blame that the Administration has and make it seem that the Congress – Republican and Democratic alike – had equal standing in the drive to war.</p>

<p>This war was conceived by the Administration – planned, justified, supported by the Administration’s intelligence, and represented in a certain way to the international community – all by the president and his administration. The Congress, Republican and Democratic members alike, basically rubber stamped it.</p>

<p>My agenda is how do we get out of it. And your brand of trying to avoid accountability for the people who continue to justify decisions which you seem to acknowledge were wrong won’t help in that.</p>

<p>There’s not really much point in talking further. Sorry, it’s a war being fought by Americans, some of whom are dying. Yes, Congress as a whole signed off on it and share some responsibility. The greatest responsibility lies with George Bush, end of story. There’s not one fair-minded person who would say anything different. Much as the Democrats were to blame for Vietnam, in this sense (though likewise they had a willing Republican faction in Congress who helped push it along).</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

Which is it?

Contrary to your assertion, my statements were not inconsistent.</p>

<p>

Much as the Democrats were to blame for Vietnam

During the last presidential election John kerry spent most of his time blaming Nixon for vietnam. I bet you voted for Kerry. </p>

<p>

The Congress, Republican and Democratic members alike, basically rubber stamped it.

Now that is a naive statement, since we are on the subject.</p>

<p>

And your brand of trying to avoid accountability for the people who continue to justify decisions which you seem to acknowledge were wrong won’t help in that.

Accountability and getting out are two separate issues. You are re-writing my comments if you think I have a brand of trying to avoid accountability.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

My agenda is how do we get out of it.

</p>

<p>The path to getting out is clear: the Presidential election in November 2008.</p>

<p>Among the top tier candidates:</p>

<p>Three have stated unambiguous support for getting out of Iraq (Clinton, Obama, Edwards).</p>

<p>Three have stated support for increased troop strength and a indefinite military committment in Iraq for as long as it takes to “win” no matter what (Guiliani, McCain, Romney).</p>

<p>If you want to get out of Iraq, you have to vote accordingly. You can’t say that you want to get out and then support a candidate espousing an open-ended military commitment. Conversely, if you believe you should stay until we “win” no matter what, you can’t support a candidate pledging to bring the troops home.</p>

<p>That’s really all you have to know about November 2008.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

Contrary to your assertion, my statements were not inconsistent.

</p>

<p>Your statements paraphrased:</p>

<p>Closest to truth: a>b (in one statement)</p>

<p>a=b in other statement</p>

<p>Contradictory, I win</p>

<p>

During the last presidential election John kerry spent most of his time blaming Nixon for vietnam. I bet you voted for Kerry.

</p>

<p>Guilt by presumed association, changing the subject. My views about Vietnam for the purposes of this discussion are stated above.</p>

<p>I win.</p>

<p>

Now that is a naive statement, since we are on the subject.

</p>

<p>You have base your argument on Congress’ monopoly on war declaration, but the Administration itself has stated:</p>

<p>

The February 6, 2006 testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:</p>

<p>GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you’re possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we’re not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

</p>

<p>Now I am not suggesting that Congress shares no blame; however, I am not going to hide behind some irrelevant reading of the Constitution to declare that a>b, that the President did not initiate a war that he clearly initiated.</p>

<p>I win.</p>

<p>

Accountability and getting out are two separate issues. You are re-writing my comments if you think I have a brand of trying to avoid accountability.

</p>

<p>If the president doesn’t admit to a problem [a problem which by the way you, razorsharp do admit to], he’ll not see the need for a solution.</p>

<p>Accountability and seeking a solution to problems to which one is held to account are inextricably linked, logically. Where there is a problem, we expect our leader to find a solution. In my case, I believe the solution is pulling out of Iraq before we waste more of our lives or treasure.</p>

<p>You apparently can’t handle the truth.</p>

<p>I win.</p>

<p>Goodbye.</p>

[carlmom]

<p>Thank you both for an illuminating discussion.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

I win.

Since I have almost run out of words on this subject, I hereby concede victory to BedHead and acknowledge BedHead as the winner. Please see Interesteddad for your award. He keeps them in the left drawer of his interested desk in his interested home in Interestedland, if you are interested, that is.</p>

[bullwinkle]

<p>Taking this back to Ms. Sheehan, regardless of one’s views of her opinions, I think she has acted as a true American hero and patriot. She has “put her money where her mouth is”. She and her family have paid the ultimate price for this “war”. </p>

<p>I take no pride that most of my involvment has been to engage here in this cyberbabble while this woman has put everything on the line.</p>

[D_yer_Maker]

<p>Yes, I agree with all that, bw, but it was to little effect. She preached to the choir. As the mother of a deceased soldier she could have built a bridge to moderates and conservatives, inviting them to oppose the war without having to buy into radical liberalism, lock-stock-and-barrel. Instead, she was co-opted by the radical left to provide affirmation and validation to them. And she got caught up in all manner of sideshows that pegged her as a liberal and made it harder, not easier, for people to take the leap. I admire her for her conviction, but she fell miserably short of her potential. I don’t condemn her for that. Not at all. She had no obligation to effect change and she was a novice, swept up. No, if there’s an accusatory finger to point it’s at her handlers and the hard left-wingers who exploited her for their personal gain and tried to leverage her for their own pet causes.</p>

[higherlead]

<p>“She has put her money where her mouth is”</p>

<p>Actually I think it is Michael Moore, Ben and Jerry, Code Pink, and MoveOn are putting their money where Cindy’s mouth is.</p>

<p>Casey Sheehan is one of America’s heroes. He volunteered for the military and then re-enlisted in 2003 when he knew his unit would be sent to Iraq. On top of that he volunteered for the mission for the mission he was killed on. Every American owes this young man a debt of gratitude and that our country produces such men is something that should make us all proud.</p>

[Princedog]

<p>

But with all due respect, this kind of blanket response that it goes the same sorry way it always has doesn’t help us make good decisions. There ARE some wars worth fighting – WWII, the Revolutionary War, I guess as Americans we’d have to argue the Civil War, Korea at least below the 38th, etc.

</p>

<p>Yes, I was mainly talking about militarily intervening to establish democracy, which America has done on varying scales with little success (Latin American in the early 20th century, for instance). They weren’t quite wars, but I always feel like Iraq was that basic idea magnified times 100. But still doomed to fail. Some people would call it a war of aggression. </p>

<p>The Civil War, the Revolutionary War, these are things used by some to invoke our sense of patriotism and to support big stick policy. But things have changed quite a bit since we fought the Revolutionary war. We cannot continue to evalute our foreign policy decisions in this light. International power structures have evolved so much. Even WWII was under very different circumstances and the world has changed a lot since then. Some of the Cold War, well a lot of the Cold War, may be worth considering in this light because I think the War on Terror climate has almost taken on a Cold War-esque type feel. Was the Cold War all worth it, maybe, I mean I don’t know, the Soviet Union eventually fell. But I don’t think we wanted another Cold War. The problem is, once you fall into a situation like that, the power structure becomes so delicate that you’re basically stuck there. And that’s where I see us now. Iraq isn’t going away. Pulling out (although I think I should we do it, FWIW) isn’t going to make this all go away.</p>

[conyat]

<p>

If you opposed the war in Iraq before it started and still oppose it, the only moral thing to do is vote against Hillary Clinton and refuse to support her once she is nominated as the democrat candidate.

</p>

<p>Did you think this one all the way through? Why is a vote for Hillary, who has reconsidered her position in the light of evidence that Bush lied about WMD morally wrong, when one considers that the alternative will most likely be a Republican candidate who will leave the bungling AEI in charge? Wouldn’t that even be more immoral to those who oppose the occupation?</p>

<p>Or do you just not want people who oppose the occupation to vote at all?</p>

[conyat]

<p>

I am also saying you can’t bash the President unless you also bash those in Congress who voted for the war. They are all the same. They had the same intelligence, they had the same debates, and they made the same decision.

</p>

<p>I don’t think that Congress, even the Republicans, knew that Bush and Cheney were seeking out flawed intelligence to make a case a for the war. I think Congress believed that the administration presented the intelligence in good faith. More fools they, but that doesn’t make them as responsible as the people who hired Feith to do what he did.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

I am saying Congress is equal to the President and your suggestion that Congress is some how less responsible than the President is simply wrong. I am also saying you can’t bash the President unless you also bash those in Congress who voted for the war. They are all the same. They had the same intelligence, they had the same debates, and they made the same decision. When you separate out the President for additional condemnation, you are revealing your personal political (probably liberal) agenda.

</p>

<p>Yes…and no. Even though the Constitution is set up in an attempt to keep the POTUS from being too powerful in foreign policymaking, reality has shown us that he has more of an ear on the rails than Congress does. He also has more discretionary authority in military affairs than the Congress does.</p>

<p>This makes sense. After all, no single congressperson has access to all of the information that the POTUS has, ranging from the NSA to the State Department. Ultimately, even if the Framers didn’t necessarily intend for such a centralization of foreign policymaking, it has happened-- the Congress just gets to sit back and sign ineffectual bills to try to stop him.</p>

[conyat]

<p>You do have me curious though. Do you have a link to where Congress was informed–before their votes–that the Nigeria uranium memo was a forgery?</p>