<p>
<a href=“http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/8380492.html[/url]”>http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/8380492.html</a></p>
<p>Will all the Democrats who thought Sheehan was wonderful when she was bashing President Bush now help her overthrow Pelosi?</p>
<p>Um. No. Sheehan is not a serious political contender. If you remember, she tried pulling a similar stunt against Feinstein, and withdrew it weeks after.</p>
<p>“Will all the Democrats who thought Sheehan was wonderful when she was bashing President Bush now help her overthrow Pelosi?”</p>
<p>Hardly necessary with the Republicans in cut’n’run mode. But I think your question was directed at Democrats, not at me, so I guess you’ll have to wait for them to respond.</p>
<p>Somebody should get that woman back on her medication. On the other hand she couldn’t be any worse than Pelosi.</p>
<p>“Somebody should get that woman back on her medicat”</p>
<p>Why? because she lost her son in the WAR? </p>
<p>Maybe you should try a little compassion. At the end of the day, you can still get ahold of your kid, she can’t.</p>
<p>Cut her alittle slack. She’s given more than most.</p>
<p>Oh, as a Democrat, I think it was great that she was bashing Bush, even if she was being co-opted by some of the loonier-tunes. Doesn’t mean I’d support her against Pelosi, whom I’d grade out at a B+ or A- in her job of herding cats.</p>
<p>Pelosi has done a LOUSY job. She never had to even schedule a vote on war funding. No Democrat and no Republican ever had to even vote in favor or against the troops. The funding running out, the Prez would have a choice to either fund the hostile, aggressive occupation out of other military funds, or use the available funds to bring the troops home. </p>
<p>Take a look at her plan for the first 100 days. She has been a walking disaster. Do we know any more about the reach of the Abramoff scandal than before she took over? No. Are the Dems. any closer to a health care plan than before she took over? No. Are we any closer to an immigration agreement? No. Has contracting in Iraq changed? No. </p>
<p>She plays politics with people’s lives. We are now two years “post-Murtha”, another million Iraqi refugees created, Pelosi and co. fund walking ads for Al-Qaeda, and it is Sheehan who is off her rocker?</p>
<p>She’s not my rep., but as someone who favors democrats these days (and I haven’t always; even voted for that moron that we have in the White House the first time he ran) - I’d favor Pelosi over Sheehan , no question.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini. Dems in charge have been all talk and no action. Sheehan doesn’t expect to win; she expects to get Pelosi to ACT.</p>
<p>Sheehan may be the sanest one of the bunch.</p>
<p>Limits for action are circumscribed by presidential vetos, virtually unanimous Republican opposition (occasional sound bites by Domenici, Collins, etc., notwithstanding), and the necessity to hold the Democrats to some standard of unity…see also, herding cats. That may not be exciting or palatable, but it’s reality.</p>
<p>Mini, no, Sheehan is a loose cannon. I sympathize with her loss but her loss does not confer political acuity.</p>
<p>I am a lifetime Democrat, and I would vote for Sheehan because I think she will shake the House up and change the direction of the Congress. The Senate would be a better place for her IMHO. She would challenge the gutless wonders we have in there now, democrats and republicans.</p>
<p>“Limits for action are circumscribed by presidential vetos, virtually unanimous Republican opposition (occasional sound bites by Domenici, Collins, etc., notwithstanding), and the necessity to hold the Democrats to some standard of unity…see also, herding cats.”</p>
<p>Nope. The funding issue on the war could have been dealt with regardless of presidential vetos, Republican opposition, or Democratic unity. Nothing was required of President, Republicans, or other Democrats. All the speaker had to do was say she wasn’t scheduling a vote. Finished. End of story. Everyone would have to scramble around her. </p>
<p>She is a profile in cowardice. Pelosi’s lack of political acuity (if she knew she’d fail so convincingly on her “100-day” program, why did she commit herself to it?), coupled with her cowardice, may yet cost the Democrats the next election.</p>
<p>“I sympathize with her loss but her loss does not confer political acuity.”</p>
<p>Bingo.</p>
<p>With both sides anymore I wonder if the status quo is what they seek. Politics anymore is about raising as much money as you can. If you eliminate the problems, the money faucet dries up, or people focus on other issues.</p>
<p>The demos are afraid to act because in doing so, the reasons to give them money go away. Same for the gopers, just different issues they play with. </p>
<p>I didn’t use to be back in the days of politicans that worked together (yea, a while ago) , but I am a believer in term limits anymore. Give em 8 years to get it done or move on. Same with supreme court…10 years then bye… We have created a beast in our government that will let problems fester and grow, simply because it pays to do so… There’s more money to be made talking about national healthcare or ending abortions (just examples folks) than actually doing it. </p>
<p>When was the last time you got a political flyer from either party saying “look at the success we have with “xxxxx”. We need your contribution of $xxx to keep the good work going.” </p>
<p>Personally, I can’t recall. I get stuff from both sides alarming me about issues they need money to “combat”…</p>
<p>I hate the “let’s do x because the other side is doing the opposite!” crap. It seems like politics is becomming a battle against the other party than an effort to accomplish anything.</p>
<p>This whole idea of Sheehan’s is idiotic. What does she intend to charge the President with, “Murder of the english language?”</p>
<p>Taking us to war under false pretenses? Thereby causing the deaths of thousands of our service people and untold thousands of Iraqis, many of them civilians, many of them children?</p>
<p>
That would be fun to watch - Hillary damning George Bush for taking us to war under false pretenses when she never even bothered to read the NIE with its included caveats concerning the area of disagreement on the WMD. But, that lack of research never stopped her from making the most hawkish of all statements concerning Saddam and Iraq.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about Hilary. I’m talking about grounds for impeachment for Shrub.</p>
<p>I know, but Hillary would be on the “jury”. She and a majority of the Democrats who voted for the war after seeing (or at least having access to) the NIE which laid out the collective views of the Intelligence community - both the conclusions that they existed and that a nuclear program was being reconstituted as well as the dissenting views of the agencies that had reservations about some of the evidence. After having seen this evidence, they still voted for war. The embarrassing thing for Clinton, however, is she admitted that she never bothered to read the NIE - yet she now says that she was “misled”. I guess that’s another case of “Arkansas chutzpah”.</p>
<p>So, if impeachment is in order, perhaps all 80 or so senators that voted for the war should also fall on their own swords.</p>
<p>"The embarrassing thing for Clinton, however, is she admitted that she never bothered to read the NIE - yet she now says that she was “misled”. I guess that’s another case of “Arkansas chutzpah”.</p>
<p>She was “misled” - like Biden, Levin, and the whole “experienced” gang, but by Clinton and Tenet in the big lie of February 1998. After having signed on the big lie, the little elaborated additions of Bush/Tenet/Powell could hardly be resisted.</p>
<p>Lest we forget:</p>
<p>Senator Biden:</p>
<p>"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq’s transgressions. [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].</p>
<p>Senator Lieberman:</p>
<p>"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . " [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].</p>
<p>Senator Levin:</p>
<p>“Mr. President, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq’s neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world’s energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein’s ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal” [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].</p>
<p>Senator Kerry:</p>
<p>"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . " [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]</p>
<p>Al Gore:</p>
<p>“There should be no doubt, Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . …” (February 1998)</p>
<p>There wasn’t an iota of evidence that Saddam either possessed, was producing, or was prepared to deliver weapons of mass destruction toward the U.S. at any time between 1992-1998. For almost five of those years, inspectors kept on saying the same thing, even as the Clinton genocide proceeded. It was created from whole (Democratic) cloth, and when questioned, resulted in the U.S. kicking out the inspectors in December 1998, to make way for the Christmas bombings. </p>
<p>Note specifically Levin’s call for the use of military force. If they favored military force in 1998 because of the big Clinton/Tenet lie, how could they NOT favor military action in 2002?</p>