Cindy Sheehan: To Pelosi & Conyers: We the People are Setting the Table Now

[earth mom]

GO CINDY! :applause:
______

Sunday, November 12th, 2006

'Open Letter to Reps Pelosi and Conyers' ...by Cindy Sheehan

We the People are Setting the Table Now

Dear Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Conyers,

I am writing this open letter to you both on the day after Veteran's Day. A day that has so much more meaning to me since my son Casey was KIA in Iraq for absolutely no reason but to line the pockets of the war machine. I cried in front of his symbolic tombstone at Arlington Northeast in Philadelphia and I dreamed of him before I awakened. Casey's "tombstone" was planted in the ground directly across from Liberty Hall which was the birth place of our Republic. How tragic it was to see 2842 tombstones of our brave young people who have been killed by people who are trampling all over our Constitution and making a mockery out of the separations of power and the original intent of that document. 2842 citizens who were willing to volunteer for service and were killed by people who lied to the world to send them to invade and occupy a country in a war of aggression that has killed almost a million Iraqi citizens. How tragic it is that you both, our newly elected Democratic leadership are already talking about abrogating their Constitutional responsibilities, again.

We the people are shocked that you two are already stridently saying over and over again that impeachment is "off the table." Since the historic Nov. 7th elections, I have talked to a boat-load of Americans who want impeachment on the table. We activists worked hard to make these elections about national issues, like the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, and the culture of corruption that, especially you, Ms. Pelosi have been railing against for months now. And you, Mr. Conyers, have already written a brilliant and detailed indictment of BushCo. We the people are definitely puzzled by your rhetoric.

We the people put the Democrats back into power because we want to see a change in this country and a rejection of politics as usual. We want politics as unusual. We want to see the issue of impeachment and a speedy and safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq de-politicized and brought into the realm of "right and wrong" where these issues belong, not "right and left."

We the people are here to tell you that we are the ones that are going to be setting the table, now. For too many years, we have allowed you people, who are just like us and elected by us and from us, to tell us what the agenda will be. Like I told George in a recent letter to him (no response yet, hmm), a sleeping giant has been awakened in this country and we are not falling asleep again just because the Democrats, only with grassroots involvement and commitment, are back in power in Congress.

<snip>

More:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php

[ixion]

1. excellent piece by Cindy

kicked and recommended.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Go Cindy Go!!

K&R.

[acmejack]

3. Kick!

[photogirl12]

4. K&R

Go Cindy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[seemslikeadream]

5. No more cover-ups Mr. Lee Hamilton

for the good of the country, we tried that once before, Iran-Contra, and now they're all back.

THIS TIME HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

[partylessinOhio]

6. Pelosi, too big for her britches?

CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Pelosi's constituents demand impeachment
Future speaker's district actually voted to remove Bush and Cheney
Posted: November 12, 2006
6:53 p.m. Eastern


WASHINGTON – While future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted before the election she would not support impeachment hearings, she will actually be rejecting her constituency's demands if she stays true to that campaign promise.

In fact, on Election Day, Pelosi herself had a chance to vote for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney in San Francisco.

On the ballot last Tuesday in San Francisco was Proposition J calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It passed with more than 59 percent of the vote. In neighboring Berkeley, a similar measure passed with nearly 70 percent of the vote.

"Shall it be City policy to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney?" was the way Measure J was phrased.

Though Pelosi said she didn't want a Democratic-controlled House to take up impeachment of Bush, she did not take a public position on the local measure and no reporter pushed her on how she voted in her hometown election on the issue. ...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52918

Impeachment is manditory.

[Bake]

7. Pelosi/Conyers/Reid are seasoned politicians.

And they know better than to announce their intentions before they have any hard evidence (which can be uncovered via investigation/subpoena) and before they have educated the public. Sheehan isn't a seasoned politician, and frankly, I'm glad she's not "setting the table." For an intelligent contrast, read the thread on John Dean's take on impeachment, from back in September.

Sheehan doesn't necessarily speak for all Dems, and she doesn't speak for me on this issue.

Flame away if you wish.

Bake

[shance]

11. Too much seasoning (and too much power) spoils the feast.

I'm a Democrat who happens to believe too much time in Washington is not good for the constituents, nor the leader who becomes far too accustomed to the plush, surreal Washington lifestyle.

Time for reasonable term limits so that all of us can experience being in Washington and then returning to being a normal citizen.

[Bake]

19. We have term limits.

They're called "elections." When We The People decide someone's been there too long, we have the ultimate limit on his/her term: vote the bums out.

Bake

[bobbolink]

31. So, in the meantime, let the party leaders overturn the table?

[Bake]

32. No, it's called "representative democracy."

We The People elect our representatives to do their particular job. That includes political strategy.

I happen to agree with Pelosi's strategy. Some here don't, and want to dictate what the strategy is to be ("set the table"), and in the process, they're getting the cart before the horse with regard to impeachment.

Bake

[bobbolink]

34. We've come this close to losing our country from that kind of

"representative democracy"

As for dictating.... the DLC is doing a good job of that.

See ya....

[Seabiscuit]

16. I'm with you.

As the fruits of the investigations pour in, the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors will reach a boiling point, at which time the House will be compelled to initiate Impeachment proceedings. Pelosi and Conyers and others know this full well, and will not impede that tidal wave when it comes. They can't talk Impeachment now - not only is the evidence not all in yet, the MSM would crucify them at a time they need to keep the attention focused on Bush and Republican scandals and humiliations.

As much as I love Cindy, and applaud her outspokenness, she's no John Dean on this issue, that's for sure. She's more at home picketing outside the White House with "Impeach Now!" signs, which itself is also a good thing.

Here's a link to the John Dean interview:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2707461

[NotGivingUp]

8. Cindy...you are fanTAStic! i'm behind you 100% and we ARE

setting the table!!!!!!!!!!

[NotGivingUp]

9. WE are setting the goddam table!!!!

[understandinglife]

10. "See you on January 3rd." ... and, you know she means it!

Recommended.


Never, Ever Forget: George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq .... and, now he willfully provided nuke-making instructions to terrorists -- if you doubt it, just check 'the google' ....

[calimary]

12. Say it, Cindy! I'm with ya all the way!

I couldn't agree with her more.

And here's proof:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964978&mesg_id=2964978

[SouthernBelle82]

13. Good letter

I hope Pelosi meets with Cindy again. And isn't it Mrs Pelosi since I thought she was married?

[Generic Other]

14. I stand with Cindy

:patriot:

[AntiFascist]

15. I fully support the sentiment behind this letter...

but I don't want impeachment ever to be up for negotiation.

[earth mom]

17. Kick!

[Rainscents]

18. Kick!

:kick:

[BuyingThyme]

20. kcik

[noonwitch]

21. Pragmatism just isn't Cindy's thing, is it?

Bush has 2 years left in office. It would take too much time away from other things to impeach him at this point, unless he were to do something new that was impeachable.

I know you guys love Cindy and all, but her 15 minutes were up in September of 2005, when Bush returned from his ill-timed vacation. The american public stopped paying attention to her long ago. She needs to move on with her life.

Yes, the war is bad and the public voted in the democratic congress to get us out of that. To assume that the public at large desires impeachment is stretching it.

[earth mom]

29. 15 minutes of fame?

Are you kidding? Your post bites and I'm not kidding! :eyes:

Can you think of ANYONE-anyone at all who is doing what Cindy is doing? Or anyone who will do it if she gives up now?! Excuse me, but I'd don't see anyone! Not a soul who will put their money where their mouth is like someone who is rich, famous and powerful-say like Oprah who could easily make some huge waves! NO ONE-rich, middle class or poor-is willing to risk it all and put it ALL on the line like Cindy has done! To criticize her speaks volumes about YOU.

[Bake]

33. Tsk tsk. We don't "criticize"?

My ass! Cindy's made herself a public figure, and when she purports to speak for The American People, which includes me, she stands every bit as open to criticism as any other politician or activist.

And like many "activists," she's not terribly pragmatic. She's too busy "speaking truth to power" or whatever that overused chestnut is.

The simple fact is, Cindy Sheehan DOES NOT "set the table." Certailny not for me, and not for at least a fair number of DUers (to say nothing of Democrats in general). Just because I supported what she did in Crawford doesn't give her carte blanc to dictate an agenda or mean that she's right 100% of the time.

Bake

[Zomby Woof]

52. Perfect. Beautiful!

Thanks Bake! :D Wished I posted that myself.

[G Hawes]

53. Yes,

What Bake said.

[earth mom]

60. How do you know that Cindy doesn't speak for the vast majority of Democrats?

87% wanted Impeachment-close to 400K people-on the MSNBC poll just a few days ago but that's meaningless because "some" DUers don't agree? C'mon now, tell me another "story". :eyes:

Your argument holds no water because there was overwhelming support for Impeachment around DU before and after the election that has been twisted the past few days by an orchestrated effort by those who don't want Impeachment to happen. Anyone who's paying attention can see what's happening and that there are a certain "type" of people behind it who are pros at doing a "Dixie Chicks" on any one they choose to annihilate, like Cindy or anyone who gets in their way.

[Bake]

61. You expect me to prove a negative. Ha!

And then you cite an unscientific online poll? Typical.

All I said was that Cindy doesn't speak FOR ME. And for a number of other DUers. I think it's incredibly arrogant of her to claim that she and she alone speaks for "We the People." If she speaks for you, fine. She doesn't speak for me.

All you have to do is look at the division HERE on DU over the impeachment issue, which is not simply a recent development, as you suggest. I think it's a safe inference that the rest of the public would be divided as well. And finally, this isn't even over the issue of impeachment itself. It's over coming out up-front and saying that's what you intend to do -- evidence be damned. Some of us have simply pointed out the pragmatic approach of doing investigations FIRST, and letting the evidence fall where it may. I guess that's not ideologically pure enough for you.

Bake

[earth mom]

62. Anyone who knows anything about Impeachment knows

that "investigations" are part and parcel of it. And anyone who knows anything about what's happened the past 6 years knows that the evidence is there and that those investigations will lead to Impeachment. The framing of a Karen Hughes type "on message" meme of "investigations" instead of flat out saying "Impeachment" simply serves to confuse some people and muddy the water. It is no doubt part of an orchestrated game plan by those opposed to Impeachment to which I will continue to object to.

Let's make this crystal clear: Impeachment and everything that it entails.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2723350

[cali]

22. One of the worst letters I've ever read,

and I can't stand it when people purport to speak for "we the people".

I appreciate what Cindy Sheehan did to bring the war into focus, but I don't stand with her on this letter for a second.

[earth mom]

30. So in your view the Constitution should be shredded

just as * & Co wants to do. Careful-your spots are showing. :eyes:

[cali]

36. My contempt for you just grows and grows

as I read your responses to people who disagree with you. And twist their words unrecognizably. Hell, you don't even use their words. You just make shit up. charming. As for this "if you don't agree with me, you're a freeper or a right winger or whatever, well fuck that kind of narrow minded crap. Oh, btw, I'm not a Cindy Sheehan fan. Sorry she lost her son, admire her for speaking up, but I think she's completely off the rails and has delusions of grandeur. Anyone who purports to speak for 300,000,000 people is full of it.

Hey, I've got an idea; why don't you go lecture skinner? He seems to be in agreement with me. What are you gonna do? Tell him he's really a winger?

[earth mom]

39. And my contempt for you grows and grows.

I've noticed your narrow minded and militant posts too for quite awhile now so don't think no one is noticing. Your purpose seems to come on to MY thread and broad brush smear not only Cindy but me too. My, how "kind and charming" of you! NOT! Seems like your sole purpose is to stir things up and try and slam down anyone who thinks this country should be more to the left than you want it to be-well I'm just calling a spade a spade. I don't care if you don't like it. As for twisting words-you must be talking about yourself because I have no idea what you are talking about but I don't really give a damn because nothing you ever post makes any sense to me in the first place.

BTW-there are "well known" people on DU that I disagree with about Impeachment. People who shall go nameless but who have published books etc. But I have NEVER seen them or Skinner slam Cindy EVER. What is your point to do so?! Hmm? That's what I questioned here on my thread because it serves no useful purpose except to slam Cindy in a Bill O'Lielly or Rush Limbaugh way with the goal of taking her down and silencing her. It must make you feel better putting Cindy down which in my book that's just lower than low.

[cali]

40. Less than truthful yet again.

And comparing me to O'Reilly or Limbaugh is a no-no. I did not slam her. I criticized her. I don't idolize her. And all hold my liberal creds up with anyone on this board. Liberal doesn't mean stupid or zealous. Yeah, I'm such a winger that I've been working on Bernies campaign since his second run for the House. And only a right winger would vote for the Progressive party.

But I don't fall sway to the cult of personality. Fact is, I find it downright repugnant.

[earth mom]

42. How about this truth for ya?

And that truth is that what Cindy is doing is far more selfless and noble than any candidate that you could ever campaign for. Because what Cindy is trying to do is to save lives. What could be nobler or better than that?! I worship no one, but yes, I admire the hell out of Cindy for following her heart and gut to try and do the right thing to make this world a better place. There is simply no room to criticize her for that. And when I see criticism of her for that, Fact is, I find it downright repugnant.

[nini]

44. So. why not make the focus getting out of Iraq

instead of focusing on impeachment first if the goal is to get the troops home?

Impeachment will come in time after the investigations - which will occur.

I'd rather spend early precious time getting our troops home as soon as possible and putting the horse before the impeachment cart will get in the way.


We CAN have both, we just have to be smart how we do things.

[earth mom]

49. We can't let Impeachment slide, or it will get lost in the shuffle.

I want the troops home too, but if we don't loudly insist on Impeachment first and foremost,Congress will easily let it slide while they all make "deals" and "play politics" as is their M.O. How many times have we seen them do it? Too many to count! Then the rethuglicans win again and * & Co will be in office for 2 more years and god knows what can happen in that time.

[nini]

50. you can't impeach without investigations to gather evidence

that's where we start. It's going to take a while - like it or not.

[derby378]

51. "Equal Justice Under The Law...With All Deliberate Speed"

We only have two years left to bring El Diablo to justice. We need investigations, true, but we can't delay them or drag them on. It's important to show Americans - as well as people around the world - that our system is still capable of working, even against a Chief Executive who tried to transform himself into a two-bit dictator at the expense of the Constitution.

[Bake]

64. Impeachment more important than getting troops home?

By your own admission. There you have it, folks.

How, exactly, is that "saving lives?" Getting troops home IS saving lives. But that's not as important now, is it.

By your own words.

Bake

[earth mom]

66. I said I wanted the troops home.

Congress can both Impeach and get the troops home. So spare me the holier than thou B.S.

That you are trolling around my thread and my posts trying to rip into everything I say appears to be some kind of vendetta. Because it certainly is NOT honest debate NOR an honest intention to solve the problems this country is facing. Why don't you do something positive and constructive? Or is your sole purpose to disrupt?

[Bake]

67. No vendetta, and none intended.

I simply disagree with your assertions. I don't worship Cindy Sheehan, and she doesn't speak for me.

I thought that was the purpose of a forum like this - to express opinions. From what I've seen in this thread, I'm not the only one taking issue with your positions.

And you did say impeachment - quote - "first and foremost." Your words.

Bake

[stevietheman]

41. Don't worry; there are many of us who think Democrats shouldn't....

slam face-first into an impeachment process.

I can't speak for everybody, but it seems to me the consensus is to let the investigations proceed and wait for a supermajority of the American people to demand impeachment.

If our goal is to actually remove this President, we must be patient.

Put the President in the crock pot for a slooooow cook. Eventually, he will be thoroughly cooked.

[Individualist]

23. Brava, Cindy

for once more saying what needs to be said! :applause:

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

24. Yeah. What she said!

IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH IMPEACH BUSH

:toast:

[gully]

25. Good for Cindy.

nt

[DemPower]

26. Thank you Cindy!!!

Everyone needs to join her!





and listen to yurbud
Send 500,000 impeachment letters to Pelosi by her first day as speaker Jan. 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2697215

pass it on
:applause:

[DemPower]

28. say, isn't the State of the Union coming up soon?

Maybe Eminem is onto something here?

[meuniermr]

37. Eminem? I dont get the reference.

[DemPower]

38. Mosh video looks like the State of the Union to me

All of congress there listening to bush speak...and then the American people step in

Mosh video with second ending...
http://www.archive.org/download/The_Mosh_Continues/MoshContinues_hi.mov

check out Congressman Kucinich

[savemefromdumbya]

27. don't worry Cindy the barbecue will occur in the Spring

just setting the table now and collecting the wood

[bobbolink]

35. And fattening the livestock...

:rofl:

[nini]

43. She obviously doesn't get the investigations then impeachment process either

we need to investigate first, then whether or not to impeach will follow.

I simply don't see why people can't understand that.

[AntiFascist]

45. Why can't you simply understand that...

the louder people scream for impeachment, the more likely we will be to get thorough investigations started? I still feel that yours is a false wedge issue being promoted by the pro-war crowd.

[cali]

46. The pro-war crowd on DU. Bwaaahaahhaa.

Nice slur, connecting the poster you addressed, to pro-war people. I guess Skinner's pro-war too, or haven't you read his post?

[AntiFascist]

48. No, I was saying the argument was being promoted by the pro-war crowd...

unfortunately too many are buying into it, possibly even Skinner.

:hide:

[nini]

55. Who the FUCK are you calling pro-war?

Let me explain something to you and I'll type real slow so you understand it. You must have investigations before you can call for impeachment. You can't go to trial without evidence to support the trial - impeachment is no different.

Have you heard of Henry Waxman? Do you know what he is in charge of? THAT WOULD BE INVESTIGATING all the crap we need to so we can move forward in presenting evidence against Bush and the Administration. That is why the simple process of investigations must come first - so we can nail that SOB for all he has done.

So, all of you that cry we have to keep pushing for impeachment seem to forget investigations are already being set up by Waxman and committee.

Saying ANYONE is pro-war because they feel we need to follow a path that is judicially appropriate is complete and utter bullshit. I have been against this war from day one, and to even dare use that crap against me is a personal attack, pure and simple.

If you want to discuss this issue then discuss it and keep this juvenile bullshit out of it.

[AntiFascist]

57. I never said you specifically were pro-war, and I apologize if it sounded that way...

and I also wish the best for Waxman and committee.

My argument, however, is far from juvenile. And, when did DU suddenly become an anti-war website? Certainly, a majority of Democrats are now calling for us to pull out, or at least establish a timeline, but you have to realize that there is also a contingent that is pushing for stronger troop involvement in Iraq as well as ultimately taking action against Iran.

All I'm saying is that some in the pro-war camp would love to push a wedge issue that divides Democrats on the issue of impeachment. That way, investigations into the war will become overshadowed by other issues, the Commander in Chief will keep his job, it will look like the adults (Poppy and his team) are in charge of foreign policy, but ultimately it could end up being the same old PNAC agenda with new lipstick. (My apologies to anyone who wears lipstick).

[Individualist]

47. kick

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[unkachuck]

56. thanks Cindy....

'We the people are setting the table now'....beautiful....I'm with you on impeachment but don't we need to investigate, at least for political cover....if we do it right as a legal-thingy, then we won't rally their base and corporate America as much....

....but things can get intentionally bogged down in committee too....I can see we have to keep the pressure on so we don't get chumped by our own side....but if the investigation and facts say impeach, how can ANYONE say no....

....and after six years of bushco, there should be enough facts to say impeach....

[oasis]

58. "BushCo". (eom)

[EFerrari]

59. K&R

[AngryAmish]

63. Destroy them all, Cindy!

Stack up the freepers like cordwood.

[Vidar]

65. Cheering Cindy,