Cindy Sheehan's gift to Hillary

[Nederland]

If you like Hillary Clinton for President in 2008, you should send Cindy Sheehan a thank you note.

The recent attacks that Cindy has leveled against Hillary only serve to bolster Clinton's image as a sensible moderate and breakdown the right wing's favorite argument that Hillary is a crazy leftist. If Hillary can only sneak past the rabid left wing base and clinch the primary her general election odds are looking quite good. Provided she gets that far, anytime the right wing claims that Hillary is a left wing wacko who wants to destroy the military and nationalize the S&P 500, she will be able to smile and point to lovely Cindy Sheehan and say "hey, those are the real left wing wackos, not me".

It's so sweet it makes me wonder if somebody in the Hillary camp didn't deliberately provoke this latest move by Sheehan.

[Dr Fate]

1. The polls show that centrists oppose Bush and his war based on lies.

I'm not so sure supporting Bush or his wars based on lies is an asset to any Democrat- not that it ever was.

Where is the data showing that supporting Bush and his war based on lies makes one more favorable in the eyes of swing voters and centrists?

[Nederland]

3. Hillary is planning for the future

The current trend against the war will moderate by the 2008 election, just you wait and see. As the insurgency begins its inevitable decline people will stop looking at the war as a total failure and Hillary's line that the war was "the right idea, executely poorly" will resonate.

[killbotfactory]

7. the war was a crime, executed poorly

her cheerleading for this illegal war makes her hands bloody.

The insurgency will not die out any time soon

[Nederland]

16. Illegal War?

I always found that to be a strange phrase. Which law was broken exactly? Please give either the title and section of US law or the consitution and code of international law that applies. Thanks.

[killbotfactory]

18. The same law the germans broke when they waged aggressive war

And got convicted of it by the nuremburg trials.

[Nederland]

26. The aggression was Saddam's

He started this thing back in 1990. We were just late in finishing the job.

[Dr Fate]

32. And he tried to kill my Dad!!!! n/t

n/t

[ReadTomPaine]

33. LOL well said.

I'm sick of GOP talking points here as well.

[Nederland]

39. Please

My position on the war is no different than John Kerry's.

Then again, half the people here probably believe John Kerry is a Republican. DU is so out of touch its sad.

[Dr Fate]

46. Kerry's position as a "flip flopper" cost him the election.

No one on this thread called Kerry a Republican- but I'll bet a lot of us wish he had listened to the active Democratic base instead of setting himself to be a flip-flopper by going along with Bush's lies... A strategy you still think we need to follow.

[Nederland]

62. You're right

Too bad it was his attempts to appeal to the left that made him appear that way.

[Dr Fate]

66. I've seen that new meme- that "the left" cost Kerry his bid.

I guess the breaking point was when he showed up in a tie-die at an ANSWER rally, eating tofu-dogs with Micheal Moore.


But seriously-
Most swing-voters could not tell the difference in Kerry's & Bush's postions on Iraq -or they bought the "flip-flopper" talking point.

I thought you positioned yourself with Kerry- but now you suggest he tries to appeal to the left too much.

"The left" did not make Kerry "appear" as anything. Active Democratic activists BEGGED him and other DEMs to oppose the war based on lies.

The dissenting Democrats were right, those who go along with Bush were and are wrong.

[Nederland]

70. Clarification

I positioned myself as agreeing with Kerry on the war, not his candidacy. And yes, many people at DU were opposed to Kerry because of his position on the war. However, the bottom line is that the party works by Democractic principles and the person that shares most peoples views around here, Dennis Kucinich, got around 2% of the vote.

[Maraya1969]

99. I don't know what John Kerry's position is on the Iraq war now

especially in light of all the information that has come out about how this administration orchestrated and lied about the intelligence.

Maybe he flip flopped as new information came out. I did.

[killbotfactory]

38. Are you fucking kidding me?

It was a UN decision to invade, not ours.

[Nederland]

42. Sorry

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that if the UN gives its stamp of approval its not a war of agression; but if it doesn't, it is? Is that actually your argument? Are you actually arguing that whether or not a war is a war of aggression depends not on the facts surrounding the conflict, but on a UN vote? Please.

Something tells me that you would have opposed the war regardless of what the Security Council would have said.

[killbotfactory]

45. If it's not a war of defense, it's wrong

The UN approved the first gulf war because Saddam was the aggressor. We were authorized to kick him out of Kuwait and that's it. That's what we did. This time Saddam was no threat, despite our lies saying so, and everyone saw through us so we just sidestepped them and attacked anyway. We are the aggressors in this. Saddam was no threat to us.

[Nederland]

51. And Genocide is irrelevant? (nt)

[Dr Fate]

53. And the rape-rooms. Dont forget the rape-rooms.

And when he wears that hat and shoots his rifle from the balcony- creepy stuff.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. That video of him dancing (cigar in mouth) is too much for words. n/t

[Nederland]

64. You two laugh it up

I suspect the Kurds would fail to see the humor, but hey, what do they know? :eyes:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

67. You're right. I encourage you to go over there and help save the Kurds.

If you already served your tour, cool. At least you put your money where your mouth is. If not, every friend I have in the armed forces don't want to be there. Maybe you can take their place. :eyes: this right here.

[Dr Fate]

68. As far as swing-voters go, The Kurds can all get caught in a hurricane.

I suspect the average swing-voter cares more about providing healthcare, education and security at home for their kids- as opposed to even thinking about what happened to Kurds a decade ago.

[Nederland]

73. Sad but true (nt)

[Dr Fate]

79. Prefering security/healthcare,etc to wars based on lies is "sad?"

"Sad" or "far left?" ;)

If you prefer to support schools,hospitals and emergency response in the good old USA, you are "sad."

If you prefer doing it for Iraq, you are "strong on defense."- Got it.

[Nederland]

87. No

Prefering security/healthcare,etc. to wars designed to punish someone guilty of genocide is sad. Perhaps selfish is a better term. Needless to say, nothing says you can't do both.

[Dr Fate]

88. What YEAR is this and why am I having this conversation?

I could have sworn I had this argument 3 years ago- I thought I won it already.

A little thing called "the budget" says we can't do both.

The only way to pay for Bush's lie is to cut services, raise taxes- or both.

Your entire argument is based on a prediction that Bush's vision of what Iraq should be will come true by 2008- good luck to you all in that.

n/t

[NYC Liberal]

92. So if WE get attacked because this occupation has made us less safe

that's OK because...we got rid of SaddaM?

What about all the other "bad guys" out there...you planning on invading all those countries with Saddam-like rulers as well? Good luck on finding the money. And the troops. And the support.

And something DOES say you can't do both (at least not as well as they should be done): money and military, neither of which are unlimited.

[Nederland]

93. Less safe in the short term

more safe in the long.

History will bear this out.

[NYC Liberal]

94. Self-delete

[NYC Liberal]

95. And how will occupying Iraq make us more safe in the long term again?

You mean safer because Saddam isn't in power? Hint: he wasn't a threat to begin with.

So like I said: if we are attacked again SHORTLY because this war has made us less "in the short term" and say, 3,000 die...that's OK because we'll be "more safe in the long"?

[Dr Fate]

104. It already has made us less safe: the Hurricane Katrina response.

n/t

[Maraya1969]

100. How do you DO a war on a country to punish a PERSON that is

guilty of genocide. I have heard other people try and use this argument for the war and it seem more than completely absurd to me.

[killbotfactory]

74. It is when it happened a decade or two ago and we didn't lift a finger

There was no current genocide occuring in Iraq. There were no WMD's. There were no terrorist ties. Saddam was a bad man in a sea of bad men, some of home we call our allies in the "war on terror". This war is just theft of iraqi resources under a guise of "liberation" or whatever the current excuse is.

[Nederland]

89. Now I understand

Genocide that happened a decade ago is irrelevant. Nice to know your stance on genocide. Cheers.

[Maraya1969]

98. Genocide that happened a decade is are what Saddam is

being tried for now. And we are still over there attacking and killing the Iraqi's. How does that make sense?

[Catrina]

58. Please explain that

I must have missed Saddam Hussein attacking the US???

Oh, and btw, I'm not about to find the research, but most if not all experts on both Constitutional Law and International law, have declared this war to be illegal.

Torture is against the Geneva Conventions.

Aggressive war against a sovereign nation, is against International Law.

The US violated the resolution it signed in 1991 with Iraq, as part of the coalition, when they <b>acted alone</b> in attacking Iraq. The agreement they signed specifically states that no country which was part of the Coalition would act alone in taking action against Iraq, should it violate the resolutions signed by all members ~

When Bush refused to wait for the Security Council vote, he caused the US to be in violation of the very resolution Bush accused Iraq of violating.

There's lots more, do some research, but this most definitely was an illegal war, based on lies which there is now no doubt about.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

69. Please

don't tell me after all this time, you believe that. The US made Saddam and when he served whatever purpose, the US took him down. The US could care less about Saddams actions....in my opinion.

[ArkDem]

86. I always like it when a nation engages in passive war...

[jonnyblitz]

21. Kofi Annan seemed to think so...

before you bite MY head off I am just providng the link to an article ..
<snip>
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally
<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

[Nederland]

24. Response

What he said in your link was merely that the Security Council should have voted on it first. Apparently the fact that France and Russia would have vetoed such a resolution to protect the continued flow of their Oil for Food billions doesn't seem like a conflict of interest to Annan. But I guess that makes sense, since Annan didn't want his own complicity in that corruption to be revealed either...

[jonnyblitz]

31. I am not familiar with the oil for food scandal although I noticed

Fox news and all the rightwingers were obsessed over the story. I didn't hear much about it anywhere else except FOX News so I didn't pay attention. :shrug:

[Dr Fate]

34. You must be Ward Churchill. ;)

;)

[jonnyblitz]

47. ..no..che's nephew... hola

:hi:

[Nederland]

55. Here you go

This is from the UN website, since apparently you trust them.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=97&Body=Oil-for-Food&Body1=inquiry

[killbotfactory]

41. The US was complicit in the Oil for Food scandal

for fucks sake, there is no moral high ground on this one.

[Nederland]

44. You got that right

There is no moral high ground here, and people that believe that the world would be better off today if Saddam were still in power don't occupy it either.

[killbotfactory]

49. Saddam in power

It depends what he is replaced with. If iraq turns into a new islamic fundamentalist terrorist sponsoring state, the world would be a better place with Saddam in power.

[Nederland]

56. Fair enough

...but what will you say if Iraq becomes a secular nation?

[killbotfactory]

76. It was secular under Saddam

Who knows what will happen now, it was a stupid gamble, and we are paying the price with lives and money. If Iraqi's wanted to oust Saddam, they should have done so, and we should have backed them... oh wait, they tried to after the first gulf war after Bush 1 encouraged them to, and then we sat back and watched them get slaughtered. Years later, who would have thought we would use that example of Saddam brutally putting down an insurgency while we watched from the sidelines would be used as an excuse to overthrow him?

[Catrina]

80. Funny you can't find a moral high ground

Your idea of 'moral ground' is to look for the worst dictator you can find, and justify this country's bad actions, because 'well, we're not as bad as Saddam'? But hey, Saddam was the US hit man for decades, any genocide he committed against the Kurds, was done with the approval of the US. Were you out demonstrating against that back then? Many were, just FYI!

As far as whether or not people would be better off if Saddam was still there? Over 100,000 dead Iraqis would be, as well as nearly 2000 US soldiers. Not to mention the maimed and the orphans and the childless parents etc.

Have you seen the pictures or are you one of those who can sit comfortably behind a computer and declare who should die and who shouldn't because you are so important. Tell your tale to the little Iraqi girl whose parents were blown to bits in front of her and brothers and sisters. Yeah, I know, we're supposed to call them 'collatoral damage' that makes it alright, because someone, somewhere will benefit from their murder ~

According to the Iraqi people (and that's who we're talking about here, is it not?) they WERE better off under Saddam Hussein, even those who hated him now say they were better off. So, I'll take THEIR word in answer to your question, if you don't mind.

His neighbors certainly didn't feel threatened by him anymore either. This war was certainly not meant to benefit the Iraqi people, nor was it meant to benefit the American people. So, who did it benefit? When we find that out, we'll know for sure what it was all about, and I think we're about to find out!

[Maraya1969]

101. The US had already executed successful coups. The Saudis

were offering to help the US in a coup. We had already staged a successful coup in Iran and ruined their country. AND Saddam was offering concession to the US that included he be monitored by us andhe would have elections in two years for a new Democratic Leader. The only thing he wanted was to stay in power. But that power would have been nullified greatly with supervision by the US.

He knew his entire country was going to be wiped out by the US. He knew he could not win a war against us. He was trying to do whatever he could to stop it.

It seems as if all that has happened, except the US decided to bomb its way there and kill thousands.

It did not have to happen this way. There is no excuse for this war.

[Maraya1969]

96. I remember looking that up. You cannot attack a country that either

does not pose an imminent threat or attacks you first or if the United Nations says it is OK to attack.


http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf

If you GOOGLE: Iraq+War+illegal you'll get a lot of information.

[elehhhhna]

17. She is owned by Saudibank--er--Citibank. Forget her.

[Dr Fate]

8. Is that when they will finally throw flowers and sweets at us?

I disagree with your prediction- more & more Americans will continue to be concerned with their check-books & the ability of the govt. to protect the homeland.

No one wants to throw money at Iraq anymore.

Wars based on lies are never "the right idea"- even if that is a snappy talking point.

[Nederland]

13. American public opinion has a way

...of spinning things to make Americans feel good. Just look at WWII. Do you honestly think that we entered WWII to rid the world of Hitler and save the Jewish race? Please, that little nicety was invented after the war was won and people wanted to feel like we did the right thing in spite of nuking Japan and firebombing 250k+ innocent civilians in Dresden.

People will do the same thing with this war. The Iraqi people will have elections and an elected government and this whole thing will be spun into "delivering democracy" to the Middle East. Just you wait and see.

[Dr Fate]

27. WWII was not based on lies-and recruits signed up in droves.

I honestly think that Americans were for entering WWII based on the FACTUAL attack on Pearl Harbor.

You are asking me to go along with how the media & the GOP will spin it at some point in the future, rather than taking the moral position.
That kind of "strategy" is what got us into this mess- it wont get us out. I'll have no part of it.

WWII & The Iraq War= Apples & Oranges.

[ReadTomPaine]

35. Stunning how people can believe the candy and flowers are still coming

There's no amount of force known to physics that can remove a person's head from this far up their ass.

[Nederland]

36. Response

Yes, and Americans base the attack on Iraq on the FACTUAL attack on 9-11. And before you jump on me, I understand that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. However, the fact that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9-11 matters just about as much as the fact that Germany wasn't responsible for Pearl Harbor. We went to war against Germany because people viewed Germany and Japan as linked. We went to war against Iraq because 9-11 was a terrorist attack and people viewed Iraq as being linked to terrorism. Can you blame them? Iraq has been on the State Department's list of states supporting terrorism for as long as there has been a list of states supporting terrorism.

[Dr Fate]

43. I'd rather call Bush a liar than lie and pretend he is telling the truth.

And Japan was a military ally with Germany- there were no media-faked connex like there are w/ Saddam & 9/11. Apples & Oranges.

Your attempt to make WWII comparable to attacking Iraq is no more convincing now than it was when I heard Rush Limbaugh doing it. All you need is a handful of facts we learned in 7th grade history class to refute this dishonest comparison.

I'd rather fight the lies that Bush & the media tells us as opposed to pretending they are honest.

[Arkana]

54. They didn't "view" the two as linked, Germany and Japan

WERE war allies. There was no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

This is an illegal war, based on lies. They tried to convince us that Saddam had WMDs. Then they said Saddam supported al Qaeda. Both were wrong. Enough said.

[Nederland]

60. Hey

I never claimed they didn't lie to get us to go to war. I, like John Kerry, believe that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do regardless of whether or not they had WMD. The fact that Saddam was committing genocide against his own people and giving the families of Palestinian suicide bombers 25k was enough for me.

Evidently people around here believe that the correct response to that sort of activity is to enact sanctions that starve millions of innocent people and leave leaders high and dry.

[Catrina]

71. You make a lot of assumptions about

'people around here'!

So, just to be clear, I was against this war, I was against the sanctions, but more importantly, I am against the support of dictators like Saddam Hussein, like Karamov in Uzbekistan, or the dictator of Azerbaijan, etc. etc.

I am against the US doing business with bad guys because bad guys oppress their own people who would otherwise want to benefit from their country's own resources.

You, I take it, believe the US has a right to the resources of other countries. Guess what, these policies of intervention have caused the deaths of millions of innocent people. They enrich only a small percent of the US population, and prevent the development of this country's own resources.

I supported Kerry, against my better judgement because of his support for this war, in the last election, because there seemed to be no other choice.

I will not do that again. Any candidate, left or right, who supported this war, does not deserve the support of anyone who believes in justice.

As for Saddam Hussein giving money to the families of suicide bombers, that's Israel's problem, not ours. And, btw, was that the reason for this war? I hadn't heard that before, and I doubt the American people would have sent their loved ones to die for that.

Besides, I am against punishing families for the actions of family members. That was, if I remember correctly, also dealt with at the Nuremburg trials of the Nazis who used innocent family members in the pursuit of their 'enemies'. I think that was appropriate, unless you believe that we should punish the family members of all individuals who commit crimes???

[Nederland]

75. Question

So, just to be clear, I was against this war, I was against the sanctions, but more importantly, I am against the support of dictators like Saddam Hussein, like Karamov in Uzbekistan, or the dictator of Azerbaijan, etc. etc.

So you are against sanctions and against the war. How exactly would you punish Saddam for his crimes?

[Catrina]

81. What crimes???

You mean the ones the US supported him in? The 'gassing of the Kurds' was indeed a horrible crime, but guess what, when the US Senate voted unanamously to stop dealing with him after that, in 1988, Ronald Reagan VETOED that bill, because Saddam complained about it, and the US went on sending him lots of chemicals, dual purpose chemicals, despite his 'crimes'!! Was Reagan saying that Saddam did not commit a crime?

But, you asked what I would do? I would hold trials of all those who supported him, those who knowingly supplied him with weapons and strategic assistance in his war with Iran. I would either decide he did actually commit crimes or he didn't. Unless we hold his allies responsible for those crimes with him, it is hypocrisy to hold only him responsible, is it not?

Lots of people, other than the US wanted Saddam to defeat Iran and helped him do it. Are you saying that only he is guilty of a crime? Do you not see the sheer hypocrisy of Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney et al, calling a man they supported in his crimes, a criminal? It's almost laughable if it weren't so tragic. It's like the Mafia, they all participate in a 'hit', then a few of them decide only one of them is a criminal when he won't share with them some of the loot?

If Saddam is a criminal, so is Reagan, Bush Sr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and every US company (check the Riegle Report for the very long list) who profited from supplying him during his 'crime' spree.

I'm for trying all of them, to answer your question, and getting the US out of the ME and everywhere else where they are supporting these criminals. What say you? Let the co-consirators mete out justice, or hold them responsible? I guess I don't trust justice in the hands of accessaries to crime. It's pretty simple. The moral high-ground isn't so hard to find, imo.

[Nederland]

85. Response

You mean the ones the US supported him in? The 'gassing of the Kurds' was indeed a horrible crime, but guess what, when the US Senate voted unanamously to stop dealing with him after that, in 1988, Ronald Reagan VETOED that bill, because Saddam complained about it, and the US went on sending him lots of chemicals, dual purpose chemicals, despite his 'crimes'!! Was Reagan saying that Saddam did not commit a crime?

Yes, those are the crimes I am referring to.

But, you asked what I would do? I would hold trials of all those who supported him, those who knowingly supplied him with weapons and strategic assistance in his war with Iran. I would either decide he did actually commit crimes or he didn't. Unless we hold his allies responsible for those crimes with him, it is hypocrisy to hold only him responsible, is it not?

Trials for everyone. Fair enough. However, what is the point of holding a trial for someone who you do not have in custody and, barring military action, never will?

Lots of people, other than the US wanted Saddam to defeat Iran and helped him do it. Are you saying that only he is guilty of a crime?

No I am not.

Do you not see the sheer hypocrisy of Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney et al, calling a man they supported in his crimes, a criminal?

Yes I do.

It's almost laughable if it weren't so tragic. It's like the Mafia, they all participate in a 'hit', then a few of them decide only one of them is a criminal when he won't share with them some of the loot?

I agree.

If Saddam is a criminal, so is Reagan, Bush Sr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and every US company (check the Riegle Report for the very long list) who profited from supplying him during his 'crime' spree.

I'm for trying all of them, to answer your question, and getting the US out of the ME and everywhere else where they are supporting these criminals. What say you? Let the co-consirators mete out justice, or hold them responsible? I guess I don't trust justice in the hands of accessaries to crime. It's pretty simple. The moral high-ground isn't so hard to find, imo.

No, his co-conspirators should not be let off without criticism or perhaps even punishment. However, we need to recognize that there is a vast moral difference between the person selling the gun and the person pulling the trigger.

[Arkana]

78. So...it was enough for us to pick up from the search for bin Laden

(you know, the guy who's actually responsible) and go off into Iraq and kill 2000 of our own men for a lie? Saddam oppressed his people. That point is not debated. What is, however, was whether this was the right time or the right circumstances to remove him from power. During the search for bin Laden was NOT the right time. I might have had fewer reservations about the war if it hadn't happened during the "war on terra."

[Dr Fate]

61. Bush was not merely "wrong" he was LYING. n/t

n/t

[Arkana]

77. I guess I should have said that...that's what I meant.

[Catrina]

59. Hitler declared war on the US

That's why we went to war with Germany. When did Saddam Hussein declare war on the US?

[Dr Fate]

63. When he "masterminded" 9-11. Did you not get the memo?

;)

[Nederland]

65. Never

Virtually no one has "declared" war on anybody in over 60 years. It's an outmoded concept.

[Beacho]

84. Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan

Read a friggin' history book.

[NYC Liberal]

91. Actually we went to war with Germany becuase they declared war on US

first.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. I think we will be out of there

in great numbers by 08 and it will just be a bad memory (except for the treason trials going on). Hilary needs to show she has the ... uh...accoutrements for defense in order to be elected. When it becomes even more clear that the Senate was led down the garden path by he-who-shall-not-be-named, she will look even better.

Now, don't get the idea I think she is electable. I don't. But this will keep her in the ballpark.

[peacetalksforall]

23. I couldn't disagree more. How can imperialism and death be the

right idea. If she is basing everything on 9-11 - then she is breaking with her husband who had the previous attack on the WTC prosecuted in the courts which was the right way to go. 9-11 was a crime. There was not enough reason - OR PROOF = that those named as the perpetrators were the real perpetrators.

This was a rush to judgment to declare war on the supposedly host citizens of Afghanistan who were supposed to have sponsored the so-called pilots, but they (PNAC and the cabal) flipped independently of the world and took action take out Iraq because Afghanistan had too many mountains and Iraq had more oil and taking Iraq meant they could move left and right to get Syria and Iran, plus the old revenge reason so close to the heart of George. H Clinton and B Clinton are supporting these criminals.

Moderate? The trend against the war will moderate? Tell that to the kid down the block who lost his eyesight, or the other one in the other directions who lost both legs, or the one north of him who lost his mind, or the female who lost her immune system.

I am furious that anyone would say that the trend against the war will moderate by 2008 - is that supposed to be the right time to take Iran and Venezuela? We need to cycle our wars more carefully?

I'm now going to try to calm down.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

30. So Saddam is now behind 9-11? Where have I heard that before?

We set ourselves up as flip-floppers when we go along with these false perceptions rather than fighting them.

Supporting wars based on lies does not make one "strong" on National Security- and we should frame it that way rather than going along with Bush.

[Nederland]

37. See post #24 (nt)

[peacetalksforall]

50. Why was the first bomb attack on the WTC treated as a crime ending

up with people in jail and the more successful attack (from the attackers viewpoint) on the WTC not treated as a crime?

PNAC was primed to take out Iraq. They were the ones who declared the war and because of the horrific expanse and shock and awe, PNAC made people think that we had been attacked by a foreign country. It was extremely convenient for their plan.

The Holocaust and 9-11 are not parallel.

Weak on Natinal Security? Does National Security mean operating an excellent, perfect defense system? Didn't work, did it? Didn't work by incompetence or design? The verdict is not in.

Anyway, I'm registered as an Independent as I am beginning to lose faith in Democrats and Republicans are only to be despised. And I'm a long way from the Libertarians that I know. And I'm not for Nader. I am leaderless as of now.

My hero is dead - went down in a mystery air crash.

[ReadTomPaine]

52. And when that plane crashed he took a lot the party's future with him.

Along with its will to be an actual opposition party. Many progressives feel the same way you do, HC.

[Nederland]

90. Answer

Why was the first bomb attack on the WTC treated as a crime ending up with people in jail and the more successful attack (from the attackers viewpoint) on the WTC not treated as a crime?

Simple: we had different Presidents. If public opinion is any gage of things, people like the way Bush responded to the second WTC attack a hell of a lot more then they way Clinton did to the first. Look, most people on this thread are arguing about whether or not the Iraq war was right or wrong. I can understand and respect that argument. Sometimes even I go back and forth on the issue. You, however, are arguing that going to Afghanistan was wrong--a position held be virtually no one. It is precisely that type of position--ie. positions held by a tiny minority--that make the entire party look weak on National Defense.

There was a debate on whether or not 9-11 should have been treated as a criminal incident. The jury went out on that one when Dennis Kucinich got 2% of primary vote. As a result, I can confidently say that THAT debate is over and your side lost. Get over it.

[peacetalksforall]

97. Shock and awe. It was their plan and it worked. Written on paper and

signed by the planners - known as the PNAC agenda and signers. They had to wait four years to get things off the ground after asking Clinton to invade Iraq and not achieving their desire earlier.

So you are saying that we had to declare a war on terrorists and too bad that they don't all have faces except for those who were identified on a deck of cards that a joker Cabinet member put out as a joke or to rev people up and insult the world (and coalition partners). Some way to run a war against terrorists.

So, the belief system has to work on more than shock and awe. But, the facts don't add up yet. So, I gues it means that you are neither a lihop or mihop believer and not everyhone is with you.

In addition to not allowing an investigation (other than how intelligence was or was not passed back and forth) we never proved that these people did it. (I don't personnaly believe in the Atta passport find.)

What I do believe is that killing and maiming without an attempt to prove and without an attempt to negotiate, but with a campaign of hate and terror (silly as most of it was - colors and tape and plastic and watching for suspicious characters). The campaign of hate and terror and big threat was a real success for PNACers. We'll see how it all plays out.

In the meantime, I'm sure we'll see Atta's passport in a future Museum of the War on Terror if these people succeed in continuting to sell the war that they pulled off so horribly - unprepared, raw killing, raw maiming, raw theft, raw destruction. Phoney wmds sitting in Kuwait waiting to be planted (so we'll find out). Yea, great war heros - those planners.

It boils down to trusting the regime - or not. So go on in your faith. It's OK. I believe in the beatitudes and beleive it is a leader's duty to try to find peaceful and maybe humble solutions before massacreing people.

We feel different about humanity and the lessons of all those people horribly killed throughout all of history. We waste people,hope, and our brains.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

4. I dont understand how supporting wars based on lies became "moderate."

Or how oppsosing wars based on lies makes one a "left wing wack-o."

[onenote]

12. that's laughable

I disagree with her position on the war, but she is hardly a "right-wing appeaser". Have you even checked her voting record. Does the fact that she had a rating of "zero" from the American Conservative Union and a rating of 95 from the Americans for Democratic Action mean nothing? WHat about her votes against repug positions on gun control, abortion, health care, education, overtime wages, aid for disabiled, and hate crimes -- were those "right wing" votes?

By the way, I'm not a big Hillary fan and I don't think she'd be a good candidate for Pres. But labelling her "right wing" is just silly.

onenote

[Cha]

29. she's not a rw but only an

enabler on certain Important issues like the deaths of almost 2000 American soldiers and the untold deaths of innocent Iraqis. If she believes in this god damn war on Iraq so much why doesn't she make sure chelsea and ian sign up?

[longship]

82. Clarification

I didn't say she was right wing. I said she appeases the right wing, i.e., "right wing appeaser".

She's DLC PAC, the appeasement wing of the party.

[Mojambo]

5. She's on the wrong side of a very BIG issue.

I'm not sure any amount of political manipulation will make up for that.

It certainly won't with me.

[still_one]

22. The DLC does not understand the anger generated within

the Democratic party, especially with life long democrats like myself

If they believe that I will blindly support a candidate just because they are Demcratic, then they will be in for a huge disappointment

[peacetalksforall]

25. Ditto! Ditto! I would go independent before I would go for a war

supporter and defender.

[jonnyblitz]

72. she is very very wrong. the american people don't even agree

with her based on the polls. She and her group of followers here at DU need to get a fucking clue SOON.

[Demit]

6. And you think that's a good thing?

"she will be able to smile and point to lovely Cindy Sheehan and say "hey, those are the real left wing wackos, not me"."

Hopefully she's smarter than you give her credit for, and wouldn't be alienating those whom you charmingly call wackos. I'm no automatic fan of Hillary's, but I hope her point of view is a little more developed than yours.

[Rowdyboy]

9. Classic triangulation....Hey, it worked pretty damn well for Bill....

I don't think Clinton's people deliberately provoked it, but they must be well-pleased regardless.

[Tom Joad]

10. The only way Hillary can win is by listening to Cindy

Not by insulting her. People will be way pissed if the Democrats nominate someone who wants to put more people in the slaughterhouse of Iraq. Supporting Hillary is the best way to kill the Democratic Party.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[DerekG]

15. We "left-wing wackos" just don't like to see kids blown apart

And that vile Vichy you're supporting is gonna go down in flames: politically, in this world; and perhaps literally in the next one. Kudos to Cindy if she can make a contribution to the former.

[mtnester]

40. "...sneak past the rabid left wing base "

sorry, throwing that comment in right there disqualifies the OP's argument.

As a woman, I would love to see a woman president...it is time, and we are ready. Just not Hillary, for more reasons than I have time to type.

[400Years]

19. I'll take Cindy over Hillary any day

Yeah, let's send more kids to die, that's a good platform.

[still_one]

20. as for me, a life-long moderate to liberal democrat

hillary's position on the iraq will cause me not only to vote against her, but to work harder for candidates that oppose the war

Never forget Viet Nam

[second edition]

48. Cindi needs to stick to just protesting the war ,period. n/t

[win_in_06]

83. Like I said in another thread, Cindy = Sista Soulja

[Armstead]

102. Yep -- Old Hill would be doing her best to stimulate a Third Party

As bad as Bush is, I think a lot of people who are left-of-center (in today's terminology) are going to be so fed up with the Democrat Enablers of Republican Policies by 2008 that it will prompt a Third Party movement.

Rather than thumbing her nose at the left, Hillary would be a whole lot smarter to mend fences with the leftward flank and the growing anti-war sentiment, rather than try yet another failed attempt to win over this mysterious Conservative Center.

[DemDogs]

103. She loses no matter what happens

Who do you think she's fooling if she's not fooling us?

[The Magistrate]

105. Locking

Flame-Bait.