Which DEMOCRATS have answered Cindy's question?

[yurbud]

"What noble cause did my son die for?"

I don't mean the usual bullshit about wmd, terrorism, spreading democracy, or after the fact finishing what we started, but the real geopolitical oil stuff.

I can think of a couple of members of the black congressional caucus like Barbara Lee, John Conyers, and Cynthia McKinney, but who else beyond that?

Who is pressuring their Democratic representatives to cut the bullshit and be honest?

[longship]

1. Good question.

We ought to have a letter writing campaign.

Does some wordsmith around here wish to put together a boilerplate or two?

Snail mail works best.

[yurbud]

4. This is what I've faxed to all Dem Senators:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4942974&mesg_id=4942974

[Skidmore]

2. As far as I know

Kerry
Clinton
Dean

[yurbud]

3. do you have links for any of those? As far as I can tell...

two out of three are essentially war SUPPORTERS who have been pretty circumspect about the real reasons for the war if they ahve mentioned them at all.

[Skidmore]

14. There were threads on DU about these

over the past couple of days.

[babylonsister]

5. Here's a link to Cindy's meet-ups:

http://meetwiththemothers.org/hall.php

[yurbud]

9. Most of their comments are pathetic, touchy feely variation

of GOP lies.

They don't answer her question!

[paulk]

28. it was good enough for Cindy

but you're not interested in that, are you? You're only interested in trashing Democrats.


what a bullshit thread.

[yurbud]

32. I would like to see the war end and similar ones prevented

Cindy has taken us a long ways toward getting that done.

It make take more to push it over the top, and getting the truth into the public record could do it.

[paulk]

33. ok

what is "the real geopolitical oil stuff"?? You're saying the Democrats need to be talking about this. What is it? Have you ever considered that you might be wrong? That your "real geopolitical oil stuff" might be seen by many as tin hat conspiracy crap? That it might actually be tin hat conspiracy crap?

Maybe Democrats aren't talking about what you want them to because you're wrong...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[yurbud]

11. she needs to present them with a multiple choice test.

Even the snippets of what Kerry said didn't address the real causes of the war.

Cindy need to present them with a list:

• Gain secure access to Iraq’s oil as the world’s supply begins to decline
  
  
• Military bases to influence, intimidate, and invade other oil-producing countries in the region
  
  
• Prevent Iraq & OPEC countries from trading oil in Euros instead of dollars
  
  
• Privatization of Iraq’s oil & contracts to pump it to Americans rather than French & Russian oil companies
  
  The BBC has already done a lot of work on the oil motive. You can see a timeline of the meetings and relevant documents at
  http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html
  
  
• Put money in the pockets of contractors as is also done through the Third World debt scam
  
  
• Eliminate a perceived threat to Israel
  
  

If they start to talk about WMD, terrorism, or spreading democracy, she should beat them with a wooden spoon, box their ears, or ask them if they lie like that to their own mother.

[bettyellen]

6. i thought she was asking the president because of the DSM....

so where do you read into that asking Democrats. She's met with Dean, and spoken with others. But she is not demanding answers from them. So, why are you trying to talk for Cindy?

[Fight_n_back]

7. Rediculous question

How are Congressional Democrats suppossed to know why the little one sent kids over there? He hasn't told them any thing closer to the truth than he has told anyone else.

The vote to authorize force was not that complicated. Why some of you continue this self defeating line if thinking is Bonnaducci-esque.

[yurbud]

8. Do you think Dems so stupid...

they believed that if a Saddam had a handful of nukes, he would actually be a threat to us? He would know that if one went off here, we would use that as an excuse to incinerate every inch of Iraq.

The democrats in congress are old enough to remember the calculus of Mutually Assured Destruction except in the case of a pimple on our ass like Saddam, he's the only one who would be destroyed.

They had to know this and voted anyway because they agreed with what they knew of the real causes.

If they believed anything Bush said about causes, they are too stupid to breathe unassisted.

[Fight_n_back]

13. Are you so distrustful of Democrats

that you don't belive what they say on the issue?

If you think that they are all liars then maybe you should find a message board that foesn't have "Democratic" in the title.

[yurbud]

16. stick to the argument instead of going straight for excommunication

I want to believe the Democrats are standing up for us and telling the truth, but I'm not going to believe it in the face of evidence and reason.

Do you think that most Democrats are so stupid they really thought Saddam would use a nuke on us?

The closest thing to the truth on the WMD issue is that once he had nukes, we would not be able to invade and our options for threatening him to comply with our business interests would be severely limited.

I didn't even hear any of them say that.

Think for yourself beyond the sound bites.

[Fight_n_back]

39. That didn't answer my question

Why are you buying into the Bush REpublican Party echo machine?

The Congress was lies to when they were shown intelligence just as the UN was. The vote to authorize war was made with the written gaurentee that inspectors would be given the chance to do the job. The Bush White House made sure that the invasion happened before that job was finished.

The only thing Congressional Democrats have to answer for is trusting an untrustworthy President.

Think for yourself beyond the soundbites.

[MercutioATC]

18. Yurbud is right. Let's see the Dems who voted for this war answer.

THAT'S something I'd like to see.

[yurbud]

23. I'm willing to forgive them if they do the right thing NOW

[MercutioATC]

24. And will you be willing to forgive them if they botch this and try to

redeem themselves later?

Not me. They screwed us and need to be replaced. Period.

[yurbud]

29. On forgiveness vs. replacement, divide Dems into 3 categories

Ha! In another thread, I got in trouble for being too HARD on Dems.


Now that I think about it, I would say divide Dems into 3 groups:


KEEPERS: those you can count on to do the right thing most of the time, even without being bombarded by letters, phone calls, etc. You would hate to see these guys go.


PROBATION: those with divided interests, half corporate, half American, who have been a big disappointment on some crucial issues, but been responsive to public pressure on others. For the sake of retaking Congress, we should probably leave these in place, and monitor their batting average after to make sure they don't slip into the third category.

TURDS ON THE SIDEWALK: those whose interests AREN'T divided--they are wholy owned by corporations and just make noises to satisfy rank and file Democrats the way the GOP does with the religious right. Just like when your dog does his business on the sidewalk, it is only polite to pick up these Bidens and Liebermans with a plastic baggie and deposit them in the garbage. For the sake of retaking the Congress, I suppose we have to leave these guys in place, but the sooner we scrape them off our shoe the better.

[MercutioATC]

35. I'll agree with that.

Never heard it put quite that way before...excellent!

[yurbud]

36. I'll make it a separate thread

[nosmokes]

10. more to the point, how many are standing in the well

and demanding that we get out of iraq? meeting with sheehan is all well and good and but that don't pay the rent. john kerry can tell her that he hates what bush is doing til the cows come home, but he still voted to put us in that mess and even said he would vote to put us there if he knew there were no WMDs. i can't stand a hypocrite.

[yurbud]

12. anyone with even a layman's knowledge of defense

should have known WMD was a bullshit argument.

Neither Saddam nor anyone else with a handful of nukes would dare use them on us or give them to someone who would because they know there would be overwhelming retaliation.

Guys who are sitting on a trillion dollars worth of oil don't commit suicide.

[MercutioATC]

19. It's not the WMD, it's the delivery system.

For me, the issue wasn't whether Iraq had WMD, it was whether, even if they HAD them, it was a threat to our security.

They didn't have a delivery system that could make it a problem for us. There WAS no threat to our security even if they DID have WMD.

[Greeby]

20. And even then

They'd be no threat. Why? Because Saddam, like all dictators, wanted self-preservation. He understands Mutually Assured Destruction.

[MercutioATC]

21. Exactly.

And we're supposed to believe that Dem congressmen were duped (not just blowing in the wind looking out for their political asses)?

Hell, my son was 10 at the time and he figured it out.

[yurbud]

22. even with a delivery system, you need a goal with a plausible positive

outcome before someone would use them.


That's why we weren't nuked by Russia or China, who both have a hundred times more nukes than anyone but us.

If Saddam had a perfect delivery system to put a missile on DC, what would he gain from doing so, when we would respond before the smoke cleared, Iraq would be gone, and most of the world would at least tolerate our retaliating.

In the real world, leaders don't act like Dr. Evil in Austin Powers (though they may be evil).

[MercutioATC]

25. Agreed, but the lack of a delivery system was the clincher for me.

Regardless of intent, there was NO way that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.

[yurbud]

30. they did have their model airplane theory

Saddam would fly unmanned drones from Iraq to the US without us or the dozen or so countries in between noticing and shooting it down.

That was just embarrassing, and a half step above saying Saddam had an invisibility cloak.

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. Note: I do not, of course, believe the war was justified, but

Allegedly, we were concerned about the WMD because Saddam could sell them to terrorists like al-Qaeda, not because we were all that concerned about him loading them up and nuking us himself. It was the idea that Saddam is a corrupt assbag, and if he had WMDs, might he be inclined to sell them on the black market?

Note: I understand that there were never any WMDs and that Saddam, while a corrupt assbag, hated Osama bin Laden and would not have helped him. I can buy the black market argument, but again, it is a completely moot point because there were no WMDs. I'm just saying - that was why Bush convinced many non-hawklike people to be concerned about Iraq. The resolution was a vote to put threat of force behind the inspectors' entry into Iraq, to find the purported WMDs. I can see the difference between a Senator who voted to authorize inspections with the implication that the UN would be involved if the inspectors were stymied (which was in the IWR, and which Bush blatantly ignored), and those who wanted preemptive war. There is a large difference.

[shance]

15. I love your posts YB.

The thing I find so frustrating regarding the excuses of our Congressional leaders is many are simply not being honest and up front with us, at least as far as I can see.

There is no reason we need to be staying in Iraq, other than greed and imperialistic notions. Period. Unless our leaders are not being up front and telling us the truth.

The "freedom" excuse Kerry and Clinton have used is so insulting and degrading especially to those who have lost their kids.

They may convince some by manufactured empathy, but I believe, if they truly cared about those kids and moms and dads over there, they wouldn't sleep until everyone of them were safely home.

[yurbud]

17. not telling truth equals agreeing with real reasons. Period.

[LittleClarkie]

26. Here is what I found

http://meetwiththemothers.org/

Plus her Hall of Fame and Shame.

http://meetwiththemothers.org/hall.php

At a glance, I see Conyers, Boxer and Kerry on her Hall of Fame.

You can also check to see if your Representative or Senator has met with them.

Kohl has nothing scheduled. Feingold does, though it hasn't happened yet.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

27. My god, woman, are you insane?

Presenting facts instead of making attacks?

Trying to introduce reason and research into another roundabout Dem bash?

A misguided effort, my dear, but I'll play along. Let's see...why, there are ten Democrats in her Hall of Fame. And two in her Hall of Shame. Not every politician makes either list because she met with Durbin:

-snip-
Sen. Durbin (Assistant Minority Leader) made clear, just as Sen. Kerry did that we are in a "critical two month stage." When asked "If the elections in December are a failure will the Democratic Leadership then be in a position to say that it is time to bring our troops home." The Senator responded with "Yes, definitley." The Senator made clear that he is against the administrations Iraq position and actions, and that he is against the war.
-snip-

A meeting with Obama is scheduled, and my rep Schakowsky owes a response. However Jan was among those Cindy singled out for their support of Camp Casey, and is a member of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus formed in June by Waters, Conyers, Rangel, Lee, Woolsey, Becerra and John Lewis.

Gee. I guess if one REALLY wants to know who has answered Ms. Sheehan's question (to her apparent satisfaction and not some standard of one's own) one should do a little research instead of accusing Dems of bullshit.

Many thanks for the links.

[yurbud]

31. I actually read their comments and have read what they have said at

other times.

While they were nice to Cindy, that's not the same as answering her question, "What noble cause did my son die for?"

I think these guys may oppose the war deep down, but aren't telling the truth and taking a stand--and those two things are essentially the same on this.

The closest Kerry came is talking about those enduring bases.

Knee jerk defenses are no more helpful than knee jerk attacks, and that's not my point here.

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. It's because they know her son didn't die for a noble cause

They are as aware as we that Bush should NEVER, NEVER, have invaded. Indeed, had he followed the IWR to the letter, we would not have. What they are saying, and you of course can disagree, is that before we pull out, we should make an effort to train an Iraqi army, so that when we do leave, they are not left in complete anarchy. The LEAST we can do now is ensure that they have at least a semblance of a government and police force so that they can begin to rebuild the country themselves. That does not mean that they believe the invasion was right to begin with, only that leaving now, after we've come and destoyed everything, would be worse, and that we owe it to the Iraqis to leave them with some form of law and order. I truly believe that they do hate Bush's war, and want the troops home, but they also want an Iraq that isn't teetering on the brink of civil war.

Cindy was there with the Senators - if she did not think they were being sincere, she would not have praised them. I imagine she can tell the difference between DEMS who care and Republicans who try to feed her the line about how freedom is on the march.