Why did Cindy Sheehan say that Democrats started every war in the 20th Century?

[Freddie Stubbs]

Here is what Ms. Sheehan said:

I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle.

source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191

Does Ms. Sheehan believe that Democrats killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand to start World War I? Did Democrats invade Poland to begin World War II?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. gee whiz.

You think just maybe she was obviously implying American entry into war?

No, probably not. That dumb mediawhore's so stupid, she probably thinks Roosevelt invaded Poland, right?

:eyes:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

125. Wow. Just,...WOW. "mediawhore",...huhhh. Ever taken the time to measure OPs?

Stupid?

What precisely is the value of this OP?

What has your response contributed to the betterment of humanity?

HMPF!!!

The substance of your post is WORTHLESS, DISGUSTING, MEAN and without any rhyme or reason.

Stupid? Whore?

PFFT!!!

This is the most gross example of how total assholes can twist a pure-hearted individual's passion into a tool to wield against any hope of unity. Assholes LOVE TO INDULGE IN DIVISION,...taking each grain of love to USE to their benefit.

:puke:

Human beings have the capacity to activate both dreams,...and horrors. That is clear to me.

[babylonsister]

172. Bornaginholigan (sp?) is a dear person, and you're not

aware of that. He/she also supports anti-war efforts. My bud!

[qazplm]

200. implying?

Nope. If there is one thing I dont think Cindy Sheehan does, it is imply.

She seems pretty clear at directly stating exactly what she means.

And what she directly stated was directly wrong at worst, and tremendously simplistic at best.

[HeraldSquare212]

2. She's correct.

A Dem was in the WH (and perhaps Senate and House majorities, too), each time the US went to war in the 20th Century. I think it's fair to say the Pres at the time 'started' the war, or at least, the US involvement in the war. If that's the hair you're splitting with her, it seems excessive to do so.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

6. Seriously?

You're claiming that FDR started our war with the Japanese after THEY bombed Pearl Harbor?

And you think that's an "excessive" hair to split?

[bryant69]

10. Hey no fair putting it in context

That's cheating.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EFerrari]

118. FDR kept expanding the Western hemisphere in hopes of

bumping up against a German sub.

[rockymountaindem]

139. And yet we didn't declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on us

In fact, US destroyers were torpedoed by U-boats multiple times without a US declaration of war on Germany.

[EFerrari]

144. That's true. The US has never suffered from a lack of pretexts

for warmaking.

[rockymountaindem]

156. That doesn't address the issue

The point is that the US had a cassus belli against Nazi Germany in 1941 and yet did not declare war. Instead, we accepted all of Ribbentrop's apologies and left it at that. The US didn't declare war on Germany until after Germany declared war on us on December 11th, 1941. That undermines your argument about the US running headlong into war *all the time*. It may happen sometimes, but not always.

[EFerrari]

161. I think I agree with you in specific but then there's the problem of the way

we dealt with Japan in the run up. We basically forced them to declare war on us because we were squeezing their energy supply.

[rockymountaindem]

168. And we squeezed the Japanese energy supply because of their Chinese invasion

Or, as the Japanese military dictatorship called it at the time, the "China incident". Of course, the situation was rather paradoxical for the Roosevelt administration. On the one hand, we had the potential to shut of Japan's energy supply through non-intercourse. On the other hand, our attempt to do that spurred Japan to seek new sources of energy in SE Asia, thus widening the war. The only way to break that chain was to eliminate the influence of the voracious Japanese military within the Imperial cabinet, which had been growing since the outset of the Depression.

Ultimately, Japan set the course of the eventual war in the Pacific because they were determined to find ways to continue the war, not find ways to end it gracefully (if that would be possible after all of their military and diplomatic outrages).

[EFerrari]

212. That's right. Maybe what we need to do now to get this country

straightened up is to declare war on ourselves, lol, and handle us the way we handled Japan. Except that whole firebombing thing would be a bummer.

[Yupster]

173. I have no idea if she knows any history or not, but on WWII

the argument that FDR got us into WWII would be this.

Japan produced no oil. or many other natural resources. Japan got its oil mostly from the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia). After Holland fell to Germany in 1940, it left the DEI pretty defenseless, a colony without a homeland. The US stepped in as protector.

When the DEI cut off Japan's oil supply under FDR's direction, Japan was left with few choices. It could do what FDR dictated, it could starve to death, or it could go to war.

On Germany, Hitler was well aware of the damage the US did to Geermany in WWI. He was committed to keeping the US out of the war and ordered his subs to not attack US ships even if they were in warzones. When the US gave Britain 50 destroyers for convoy duty, Hitler again insisted the US not be attacked. Even when billions of dollars of aid started flowing to England through lend-lease aid, Hitler insisted his warships back off. When US destroyers started actively hunting u-boats in 1940 and following them until British warships could come and destroy the u-boats, the subs were still ordered not to shoot at the Americans. Whenever it did happen, apologies were issued.

In short, the US was acting very much as a beligerant against Germany long before Pearl Harbor.

Still, Hitler was stupid for declaring war after Pearl Harbor. He did not have to under his alliance. The Japanese did not declare war on the USSR after all. Pearl Harbor happened just as the Russian winter offensive before Moscow had the German Army fighting for its life with memories of Napoleon's disaster in every German soldier's mind, so you'd think Hitler would have bigger things on his mind. In a weird way, the crisis in Russia may have made it easier for him to declare war on the USA. It was time to get rid of nuances, and fight the total war, and the frustration for a long time was that the US was fighting Germany and Germany couldn't fight back. So it was time to take the gloves off and fight till the end. A stupid blunder looking back.

Incidently, these arguments are correct to some extent. It is a good argument for history majors to fight out at Dennys late at night. It's certainly not a slam dunk either way.

[treestar]

8. You aren't counting Gulf War I and Grenada and Panama

Why is that?

[Redbear]

Gulf War I is "the other Bush debacle"

I guess Grenada and Panama are too small to count.

[Johonny]

25. don't forget

Nixon and Cambodia

[ScreamingWhisper]

80. Though Eisenhower was president

US involvement in Vietnam and that area was limited to less than 1000 military advisors (500 I think or there abouts).
It wasn't until JFK and LBJ that troops were escalated (JFK increased from 500 to 16,000 alone...by 1964 there were 100k+.

[PVnRT]

82. And Somalia.

Which was a Bush I special.

Let's not forget that Eisenhower was the one who started putting advisers in Vietnam, either. Dien Bien Phu happened in 1954(5?).

[jedicord]

15. Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around.

They "started" it.

[pnwmom]

59. No reasonable person would say that after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor,

we "started" a war with Japan.

Cindy has gone off the rails, unfortunately.

[rinsd]

71. Even people who claim the oil embargo forced the Japanese to act

Fail to take into account we embargoed their oil because they invaded Indochina.

[knight_of_the_star]

99. And because of humanitarian abuses

Like the Rape of Nanjing and other acts of barbarity in China.

[rinsd]

101. Those were actually other embargoes but another important point.

We withheld other natural resources(tin, aluminum etc).

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. And of course, we didn't go to war in Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti in the 20s

(Coolidge, Hoover), go into Lebanon (Reagan), invade Graneda (Reagan) or Panama (Bush 1) or Iraq (Bush 1).

WWI, WW2, Korea, we were responding to aggression by others - we did not start any of them. In fact, the only time the Democrats could be said to have started a war was in the escalation of Vietnam - and the first troops were sent in there by Eisenhower.

It is a republican meme, and anyone who knows their history can see through it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. Why is Ms. Sheehan spreading Republican meme?

:shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

189. She's a Republican.

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. Hair splitting is a hobby here

As is attacking anyone who says anything bad about the esteemed Democratic party or its elected officials.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[rinsd]

90. The US was not involved in every war in the 20th century so try again.

[knight_of_the_star]

98. I think you glossed over a few

Like how it was Ike, a REPUBLICAN, who started the buildup for war in Vietnam before any Dem was in the White House, or how it was Bush the Elder who was in charge for Gulf War I, or how the same guy was in charge during the invasion of Panama, or how it was Ray-Gun who was in charge during the invasion of Granada, and all of the above were wars of choice that we started. Let's look at the wars Dems "started" shall we:

First World War:

Causus Belli: Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by Serbian terrorists

Reasons for US Entry: the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram (probably faked by the British), unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 threatening US commerce, did not enter until 1917 and until after Germany blew their wad on the Second Battle of the Marne and the war was winding down anyway

Second World War:

Causus Belli for Europe: Invasion of Poland in 1939 by Hitler following several previous attempts to keep the peace both France and Britain pledged to protect Poland in case of invasion

Causus Belli for the Pacific: Marco Polo Bridge incident in 1937 started serious fighting between China and the Japanese Empire

Reason for US Entry: Pearl Harbor in 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan

Korean War:

Causus Belli: North Korean invasion of South Korea

Reason for US Entry: Pledge to protect South Korea as part of the partition, largest component of UN Force authorized by the Security Council

Kosovo Intervention:

Causus Belli: Massacre of Kosovoar Albanians by the Serbian government, UN Sanctions on Serbia followed up by NATO and the US declaring they would intervene for humanitarian reasons

Reason for US Entry: Decision made by Bill Clinton to ensure another Rwanda didn't happen on his watch, no US ground troops were committed and the war ended with the end of the attempted genocide and was a key cause for the eventual popular overthrow of Milosevic



So tell me, where is a war that a DEMOCRAT started for anything CLOSE to the same reasons as the Iraq War in the past century again?

[rinsd]

110. And those are just the wars the US was directly involved in.

There were over 100 major armed conflists in the 20th century in which some 160 million people died.

[rockymountaindem]

141. A minor historical point, since I'm a history major =)

In fact, I recently took a class which delved into this topic in detail...

The Zimmerman telegram was not, as it has frequently been claimed, faked by Britain. In fact, when asked about the telegram a few weeks later by a newspaper reporter, Herr Zimmerman admitted point blank that he had sent it (ah, simpler times). The British did, however, set up an elaborate deception operation to let American leaders believe that American codebreakers had cracked the telegram first. Whitehall believed that if they just told the US about it, nobody in Washington would believe them. So, the Brits who had actually already 1) broken the telegram's code and 2) bought a copy of it from a spy in a Mexican telegraph office led the US codebreakers by the hand to an "original" American decrypt. Thus, Wilson believed the telegram was authentic (which it was, anyway) because it was brought to him by US personnel.

[Yupster]

167. But the Zimmermann Proposal

involved Mexico joining the Central Powers and attacking the USA only should the US declare war on Germany.

Germany's first choice was to not fight the USA.

You could hardly blame them for looking for allies should the US declare war on them.

[Yukari Yakumo]

174. A slight correction

Second World War:

Causus Belli for Europe: Invasion of Poland in 1939 by Hitler following several previous attempts to keep the peace both France and Britain pledged to protect Poland in case of invasion

Austria and Czechoslovakia were first, but Poland was the first the Brits and the French made a stink about.

[LanternWaste]

100. Ike was President when the first U.S. troops went into Viet Nam.

Ike was President when the first U.S. troops went into Viet Nam.

Granada? Reagan. Noriega? Reagan.

[MonkeyFunk]

133. and the current war?

Democrats were in power?

[John Kerry VonErich]

147. If you wanna get technical....

Didn't democrats started the civil war? Southerners were once prominately democratic.

[pnorman]

179. "started" was an ill-chosen word, but you are right.

a Democrat President was "on watch" during both World Wars, as well as the ones that Congress did NOT declare. (The Spanish-American War, "the Republican war", began in 1898, and wouldn't count here.)

As far as "being ignorant of history", survey after survey has shown WITHOUT EXCEPTION, that the average American (extending to Congress and even higher) to be abysmally ignorant of American history. Many are even PROUD of that! Cindy would no doubt test a lot higher than the average.

pnorman

[John Q. Citizen]

197. It is hair splitting. Wilson WWI, Roosevet WW!! Truman Korean War

Johnson - Gulf of Tonkin- Vietnam escalation which came to be called the Vietnam War.

If every military skirmish, proxy war, secret war, war on drugs, war on poverty is thrown in to divert the discussion, well then. no.

But what we call wars, yes, a Dem was in the White House and took us to war, even if one believes we are truely innocent and god was on our side every time. Plus Gulf war 1 which was a bush thing.

Of course, we know the threat. We know who are true enemy is. We know who the boogy man that would lead us astray, that would wreck our country and who would bring down our way of life is. No, it's not Osama Bin Ladin, it's not the President of Iran or Hugo Chavez. Our enemy is .....Cindy Sheehan and Ralph Nader. Never forget that. Luckily some vigelant folks on DU are on top of this so we can come together and protect ourselves from the real threat.

[struggle4progress]

207. At the turn of the last century, the US was slaughtering folk in the Philippines,

having sent troops there in 1899 under the Republican McKinley; this continued as an official war until about 1902 and as a series of sporadic rebellions until nearly 1913; and the US didn't abandon it's colonial claims in the Philippines until after WWII.

The last skirmish in the Amerindian wars also seems to have occurred under McKinley, when he sent Federal troops to put down the Crazy Snake revolt in Oklahoma: even if today many people will not regard that as a foreign war, those who were conquered may well have had a different view, since the nineteenth century slaughters of Amerindians were still a living memory.

The early decade of the twentieth century saw substantial US military interventions around the world. Under Republican "Teddy" Roosevelt, for example, the United States intervened militarily again and again throughout the Caribbean and Latin America, including splitting Panama from Colombia to obtain land for the canal, as well as in other parts of the world. Congress was not always compliant.

I started to make a list of twentieth century American wars, but then realized it would be book-length. And it would lead to long pointless debates about whether people killed by a detachment of Marines who suddenly appeared without any declaration of war, or people killed by proxies whom the US trained and armed, were "really" war victims.

The US interventions in Iran and Guatemala under Eisenhower imposed "friendly" regimes that claimed, over the following years, a large number of victims, and Nixon's careful organization of the Chilean coup also imposed a murderous regime. More recently, US overthrow of the elected Aristide government in Haiti brought back to power a group of murderous thugs who had been chased out repeatedly in the past.

"The Democrats started all the wars" is an idiotic right-wing talking point that was popular in Texas thirty-five years ago, and it was used to deflect attention from Nixon's illegal war against Cambodia.

[xultar]

3. ...

:popcorn:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

4. So, FDR bombed Pearl Harbor?

News to me...

[Dr.Phool]

18. Have you ever seen the size of the bomb bay on that wheelchair?

Didn't think so.

:rofl:

[MessiahRp]

19. According to a conspiracy show on The History Channel, some think FDR baited them

So depends on what version of history you believe I suppose.

Rp

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. The U S Should Have Got Involved A Lot Sooner

If there ever is a "just war" it was that one...

[MessiahRp]

32. I agree...

I was just pointing out what others believe.

Rp

[zbdent]

24. Plenty of freepturds claim that FDR was trying to get Japan to attack

us ...

Funny how the conservatives of the time were against getting involved in Europe's wars ... where later we found out about the atrocities ...

[Captain Hilts]

42. And George F. Will himself said such accusations are insanity.

As one Roosevelt cousin noted, the only thing FDR loved and was loyal to throughout his whole life was the US Navy. No way he would have set them up for a sucker punch like that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. FDR served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Presidnet Wilson

[Recursion]

126. Unless the point was the get rid of the battleships

And force the Navy to adopt a carrier-focused fleet.

[Captain Hilts]

162. He loved battleships and they were his preferred mode of transportation...

He took the Houston to Campobello his first year in the White House, another battleship to South America and then the Iowa to the Teheran Conference in 1943. He loved them.

[LanternWaste]

111. "Roosevelt's Secret War" by Joseph Persico...

Just finished the book, "Roosevelt's Secret War" by Joseph Persico. There was a passage detailing a visit early in 1941 to Roosevelt by "Wild" Bill Donovan and Churchill re: America's entry into the conflict. Consensus of that meeting was that a war with Japan was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time" (a little Churchill quote).

Although R did in fact want to enter the war, he wanted to enter the war with Britain against Germany-- NOT Japan (and Churchill was dead set against waging war against Japan-- and with good reason).

The Tripartite Act was simply a loose coalition, merely one step up from the typical nonaggression treaties many other nations had-- not a concrete alliance. Thus R's confidence that war against Germany did not necc. mean war w/ Japan.

I've thought for quite some time that the nutty (but trendy) theory that R baited the Japanese into war with us is up there with "the liberal media"-- fun for the undereducated and sub-literate, but with little to no substance.

[rinsd]

136. I really enjoyed that book.

I found the state of our "intelligence" apparatus at the time fascinating.

I also thought it gave a very detailed lead up as to why we went to war with Japan.

[LanternWaste]

210. get amazed and surprised when a peer mention having read a book I have read

In the real world, I get amazed and surprised when a peer mention having read a book I have read, too. But I guess I should get used to it on DU-- an amazingly literate group of individuals (but hey-- what else can we expect from Progressives?)

[William769]

5. Other .

Stupidity.

[Richardo]

7. That is an idiotic, specious argument no matter who makes it.

It was stupid when Bob Dole said it, it's stupid now.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Wilson got the US involved in WW I; Roosevelt into WW II

Woodrow Wilson and FDR were both Democrats.

Harry Truman, a Democrat, ordered the only two times that nuclear weapons have ever been dropped, and ordered US involvement in Korea, both as "covert" aid to France and then by direct overt activity. Kennedy escalated US involvement in Vietnam and officially brought America into that war.

So I would say that she is entirely correct.

[buddhamama]

12. uh?

the wars were already in progress, we entered into them. the Democrats did not start them. there's a difference.

she has conveniently left out the Reagan and Poppy Bush years of aggression.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. What overt wars did Reagan get us involved in?

In WW I and WW II, we were (officially) neutral until Democratic presidents broke that neutrality and got the US directly involved. Bush I's invasion of Iraq has already been accounted for.

Oh, and in the list above, need I mention Clinton's involving the United States in the Bosnian civil war?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Grenada And Panama

I guess we were supposed to let Hitler and Tojo control Africa, Europe, and Asia, and ignore Pearl Harbor...

I don't think that world would have been very pretty...

[buddhamama]

21. note:

"...the Reagan and Poppy Bush years of aggression."

i did not use the word 'war' with regards to Reagan or Poppy.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. I sit corrected n/t

[William769]

49. So the bombing of Pearl Harbor was not justification for going to war?

:eyes:

[nonconformist]

93. Uh, I think the Japanese "broke neutrality" when they bombed Pearl Harbor. nt

[pnorman]

194. In August 1941, FDR froze all Japanese assets in the USA.

In the same month, all petroleum shipments to Japan were suspended. Deferring for the moment the "rightness" of those actions, that's as close as a nation can come to belligerency, without engaging in overt hostile acts. For that reason, the "peace" cabinet of Konoye fell in Japan. It was replaced by Premier Tojo, was was simultaneously Minister of War. Contingency plans for Pearl Harbor and all the rest, were then given the go-ahead signal.

pnorman

[Johonny]

22. Yes

If you ignore the other wars mentioned in the other posts above. I'd say she is very wrong and selective.

[William769]

46. Go back to school and retake History 101.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Crap.

Wilson kept us out of WW1 until the German preying on American shipping became so egregious that the public demanded he respond. His response was to mount a massive input of men and materials that abruptly changed the dynamics of that war and ended it 13 months - after it had gone on for 4 years.

WW2 was forced upon us by Japanese aggression, and Hitler's alliance with Japan, so when we declared war on Japan (after they attacked us) Hitler declared war on us. BTW, the 'nukes' is a strawman argument, and has nothing to do with starting of wars.

Our forces were in Korea as an occupaion force after WW2. Our involvement there came when the north attacked our forces in the south. France had nothing to do with Korea - it was occupied Japanese territory since 1905.

Our involvement in Vietnam began with the Eisenhower administration. Johnson escalated, not Kennedy. That's the one point of the argument that has a little credibility.

It ignores the central American adventures of the 20s, Panama, Lebanon, Grenada, Iraq 1.

Why are you buying into this Republican meme?

[rinsd]

89. "So I would say that she is entirely correct." And you would be very wrong.

How was the US involved in the Russo-Japanese War? The Russian-Polish waR?

How were Democrats responsible for the Iran-Iraq War?

And I would check your history because France had nothing to do with Korea.

[Hobarticus]

145. "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

[rinsd]

159. Great minds and all that jazz!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3365802&mesg_id=3365965

[ComerPerro]

135. correct on a technicality, at best. Most likely deliberate lies from a very bitter woman

[Hobarticus]

143. Germany and Japan declared war on USA in WW2, not the other way around...

Your subject line suggests that Roosevelt started WW2.

The origins of the Korean War are far more complex than Truman simply having "ordered US involvement in Korea", which frankly had little to do with France.

I'll give you Vietnam, but still, I've seen some pretty remarkable revisionist history here on DU, but never this spectacular.

[treestar]

11. She's a grieving mother, not an activist or politician

She is emotional and lashing out. The Dems are not doing enough with her single issue fast enough for her emotional catharsis.

If her son had been murdered, she'd be verbally shredding the prosecutor for not proceeding to trial fast enough, whether he had the evidence or not.

I feel very sorry for her; given what happened to her she needs therapy and grieving time.

But she is not a politician and would not represent the people of San Francisco. She would only represent herself and her son. This is not to criticize her, this is to point out that she is no activist and no politician just a grieving mother in an era when the media will publicize personal struggles.

[MadHound]

28. How fucking condescending!

"She is emotional and lashing out." Gee, how many times have we heard that tired old bullshit about any woman who dares to take on the hard issues. Yet here you go, trotting it out again. "She is no activist. . . " Riiiiiight, except for the fact that she took the anti-war movement in this country to a new level of awareness. ". . .and no politician." Frankly I find that a good think, considering how fucking badly the profession politicians have fucked up this country over the past few decades. "She would only represent herself and her son." Yep, and the majority of Americans who want us out of Iraq yesterday. You know, that same group of people who put the Dems in power last fall, only to watch in horror and disappointment as the Dems, once again, fail to get the job done. I think that's a pretty large constituency that is being un-represented right now by anybody in either party, and frankly I would welcome Sheehan's POV on this issue. I would know that there would be at least one person in the house who has the backbone to cut through the political bullshit and end this war.

Sorry, but your pandering, condescending, frankly sexist post about how emotional Cindy is is one baby step beyond the attitude that most sexist men took in condemning any woman in politics. Geez, talk about stooping to criticize somebody who has done more than you and Pelosi has to end this war:eyes: Sure, she's a one issue candidate, but it is the biggest issue of the day, and it is about time that we had somebody who truly represented the majority of Americans' view on this issue, ie bring the troops home ASAP. After all, how quickly are those professional politicians getting us out of there? Oh, yeah, that's right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. . . .

:yourock:

[nini]

94. I disagree... I think saying she is a grieving mother is right on the money

A grieving father or mother would be emotional - it's human nature.

Disagree on the motives if you want but I don't think it was sexist in what was said. ANY grieving parent would be emotional and fragile at times and to say otherwise demeans men as unable to feel the emotion associated with grief after losing their precious child - that is sexist.

[MadHound]

96. We'll have to agree to disagree then

Being that the criticism of being "emotional" has been used to demean and keep women back for centuries now. Using such a loaded term and concept when criticizing Cindy's recent actions implies that she is somehow acting irrationally, or is out of control is a bogus arguement. Was she either emotional or irrational a few years back when she was one of the few with the courage to speak out? But now that she is calling the Dems on their lack of spine, she is? Sorry, but that's a double standard there.

Sorry, but stating that a woman, one who is taking a strong public stand, is emotional is indeed a classic sexist statement. It was exactly that sort of reasoning that kept women out of power for years, decades and centuries. To bring up the term and apply it to Cindy is just a retread of that same faulty reasoning. Or wait, are you waiting for her to emotionally break down and *gasp* criticize the Democratic party:eyes:

Oh, and implying that I'm somehow sexist towards men:crazy: is known as the classic strawman. It does nothing to bolster your arguement, and frankly makes you look rather absurd, like you're stretching the truth for the sake of an arguement. If you wish to debate the case with me, fine. But to put up these sorts of insults and strawmen is counterproductive and only makes you look foolish and desperate.

[nini]

112. Thank you for calling me foolish and absurd!!

wow.. you went from we'll have to agree to disagree to flat out insults - excellent job!! :thumbsup:


you sure made quite a few jumps to conclusions from my few words :eyes:

[LordJFT]

138. re-read the post, there was nothing sexist about it

I would call Sheehan incompetant, not mentally ill and if she were a man i would be saying the same thing. I almost want her to run for an office she could actually win just to prove how unfit for government office she actually is.

[treestar]

155. True, it could be someone's father doing this just as well

Which is not even to say that a person in that position couldn't be a politician. It's just that in this case, CS - male or female - is not, or she would not be saying and doing the things she is saying and doing.

Suddenly blaming the Democrats for 20th century wars is not the sign of a person I'd want in the House.

Especially when the specific war we are talking about is a Rethug-begun war. Why, that's the very war she lost her son to. And has she condemned the Repuke party as viciously and unfairly as she has the Dems? They're the ones the started this useless war.

[treestar]

153. No it's not.

And no one said she has to be a politician.

this is not because she is a woman - how ridiculous, Pelosi is a woman. It is because she is a grieving mother and not a politician. We fall for the right wing meme that the troops are the only ones with credibility.

Why are you so angry and emotional that you are using the f word?

I feel sorry for her, and think she should deal with her grief without politics, and let other people oppose the war on the political ground. I know of mothers who still support the repukes though their sons died, so having a son who died does not make you the one to have to do the political campaigning. Who said it does? They could scream at each other, but that would be useless.

Just the idea of opposing Pelosi is sheer emotional venting. She could never beat Pelosi and even if she did, would never be the Speaker as a freshman. So the whole thing is venting emotionally - it has no practicality to it whatsoever. She can't take Pelosi's job today and do it differently. It's a sheer emotional gesture.

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. Once she announced that she was planning on running for Congress, she became a politician

[LittleClarkie]

60. And we're the party of slavery too. Don't forget that.

Ain't we the lil devils.

[rinsd]

103. Would that make Republicans the freedom party then?

[lies and propaganda]

92. I think theres a lot of agreeance

that her son was murdered.

[Bluzmann57]

14. Yes, FDR was a Dem

But as 99.9 pct of people see it, he really had no choice but to enter WW2. Our country got attacked and he could not sit by and let the Japanese get away with it. No leader in his or her right mind would have let their country be attacked like that and just sat back and said "oh well". And as far as being "the party of slavery", how so? Because Abe Lincoln, a republican ended slavery? Because a group of Southern Senators broke with the mainstream Democratic Party to form "Dixiecrats"? Ms. Sheehan has every right to speak her mind, but she really needs to get facts straight and clarify what she says.


And earlier in the post, I said that no leader in his or her right mind...etc. Bush likely wasn't in his right mind. Or if he was, deity help us all.

[karynnj]

16. She listened to Bob Dole

who spoke of Democratic wars? What of Panama, Grenada and the first Gulf War? All in her lifetime.

[Marrah_G]

17. because she can't help herself from lashing out without thinking

She feels let down because things haven't gone her way so she is saying whatever harmful things she can without thinking. I don't think she is lying intentionally... I think she has heard others spewing the same thing just repeated it because she was/is angry.

I don't defend it, but I understand it, and I think she needs mental health help. Her "friends" are using her and if they really cared for her and not just for her cause they would urge her to do what is best for her health and her remaining family's health.

The whole thing is like watching a fucking train wreck. Either her "handlers" whisper bad advice causing her drive away many people who once supported her(then I have to wonder who those people really work for.). Or she just keeps making alot of bad decisions on her own.

[Virginia Dare]

61. It's profoundly sad...

she is a very brave woman and her motives are pure, but she is, like you say, apparently taking some very bad advice from people who are shamelessly using her, and she is losing credibility by the day, especially among people who once supported her and cheered her on.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

26. She's insane.

Apparently, she would not have supported WW2, plus she lamented the fact that Dems started the income tax -- a Libertarian rant if I ever heard one.

[Cameron27]

That's how it sounded to me too...libertarian.

[northernsoul]

41. Poor reasoning does not indicate insanity

Her assertion that an explicit part of the constitution is somehow unconstitutional strikes me as being absurd absent further explanation of her position. However, if making absurd conclusions were indica of mental illness, I would speculate that about 90% of us here on DU (including myself) should have been fitted from a straightjacket at one point of another.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

44. Not "insane" in the medical sense.

[Perky]

29. Because she is a political neophyte and has no business running for Congress.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Screw that - I hope to fuck she does. I want the whole fucking country to hear her...

... say that Democrats are the party of slavery.

[Captain Hilts]

43. We need more neophytes running for Congress, but she's not it. nt

[leftchick]

30. "she is mentally ill?"

You are really raising the quality of debate here at DU aren't you? No wonder Cindy is disgusted.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. Yes, because it's totally absurd to think a grieving mother that has...

gone on a multi-year national tirade over losing her son, giving up everything else in her life to do so, is the picture of sound mental health. :eyes:

Sorry, but none of what she's done speaks to rationality.

[leftchick]

40. no it would not

to anyone not familiar with activism. :puke:

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Are you implying that there is a link to being an activist and mental illness?

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. If she is not mentally ill why would she say such things?

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. Because she cares about her country

and like most of the rest of us, she wants it back.

[Freddie Stubbs]

116. So, making foolish statements will help us get our country back?

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

121. Working our butts off to elect Dems in November hasn't helped much

It's time to shift strategies. That's all.

[Chulanowa]

195. Perhaps her history is bad

Heavans knows there's enough revisionism and obfuscation that's taken place over the last three decades to turn Democrats into war-mongering slave-rapists while "The Party of Reagan" are all Jesus incarnate.

I wonder if anyone has written to correct her mistakes, rather than wondering if she's mentally ill - what a crock.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Umm, well I suppose it's true that the US entered the two World Wars under Democratic presidents

However, neither war was *started* by Democrats or indeed by Americans at all - WW1 had been going on for 3 years, and WW2 for over 2 years, by the time the Americans entered.

American involvement in Vietnam increased insidiously under several presidents, but I suppose it's correct to say that the biggest escalation of involvement was under Democrats.

Reagan invaded Grenada - not a big war, but a war. Also he supported very shady military actions in Iran and Nicaragua and El Salvador - it's a bit semantic whether you call these wars. Bush 1 invaded Panama, as well as the first Gulf War.

[oldgrowth]

34. The mentally ill thing is over the top!!!!

[leftchick]

36. thank you!

It is disgusting.

[Captain Hilts]

45. Yes. Let's not speculate about the mental health of public figures. That includes the Prez. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. People who do not act rationally are often suspected of mental illness

Unless perhaps this is just an act.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Who cares why? She said it; that's enough.

[northernsoul]

38. I'm very perplexed here re: federal income tax

The federal income tax was introduced via a constitutional amendment. What legal basis supports Ms. Sheehan's conclusory assertion that the federal income tax is unconstitutional? How can an explicit part of the constitution be unconstitutional? What does she propose as its alternative?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I Have Heard That "Antique" Argument Before

I think it rests on the assertion they weren't properly ratified...

I have heard the same argument made for opposing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments...

[knight_of_the_star]

102. Last time I checked

The amendment giving income tax was properly ratified following a Supreme Court ruling declaring income taxes unconstitutional. The only ones that did not follow the same pattern as the others were the 13th, 14th, and 15th all of which passed with a little arm-twisting, and the one that repealed Prohibition was passed not in state legislatures but by ratifying conventions.

[oldgrowth]

39. And it's her birthday ,not good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Because Her Extreme Passion For Her Cause Has Now Brought Her Past The Line Of Reason.

She has gone past the brink of rationality and is now officially on firm ground of irrational extremism.

I can only hope that this good woman someday can heal enough to be credible once again.

[babylonsister]

165. Get over yourself, pleeze? She STARTED the anti-war movement, such

as it is/was, by pointing out what a putz the blivet is.

She also is now involved to bring IMPEACHMENT back to the table. You may not like her methods, but please don't be so condescending.

[ClintonTyree]

201. Excuse me, she STARTED the anti-war movement?

You cannot truly believe that. True, she did a lot to bring attention to an already existing anti-war movement but giving her credit for starting the movement is disingenuous. Don't get too carried away here Babylonsister. ;) I regularly enjoy your posts here at DU but giving Ms. Sheehan credit for starting the anti-war movement is a little over the top.

Peace. :hi:

[Norquist Nemesis]

52. Simply put, so it would get picked up and talked about

Obviously, it worked. Sometimes it's not what the message is but whether or not the messenger gets press, and too often the messenger fails to realize that their message wasn't delivered in a way that can be heard. That's what's happened to Cindy, IMHO.

It has to be beyond frustrating for her, understandably. But, seeing statements like the OP completely shut me off from listening. Do I want the Iraq Occupation to end? Absolutely! Has Cindy helped in that effort? She did in the beginning. Whether she chose her methods or was talked into it is irrelevant; she's doing it and tragically the message is getting lost in the noise of the crap that comes with it.

[mudesi]

54. Why don't you quote the ENTIRE paragraph?

I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don’t tell me the Democrats are our “Saviors” because I am not buying it especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George’s abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity. Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people not the politicians.

So she accidentally used the word "started" instead of "administered". In context, she is criticizing the Democrats for their lack of action regarding Iraq, and pointing out the many atrocities committed under Democratic rule (The atom bombs, for example).

[Matsubara]

55. If you wanna be picky, Ike started Vietnam.

Johnson foolishly escalated it, but Eisenhower essentially started the war by breaking his promise to allow the Vietnamese to have free elections, because he knew that the hero Ho Chi Minh would win, big-time.

Another GOP war.

And Mrs. Sheehan, the parties reversed positions on civil rights around WW2, with the GOP's final conversion to the party of racists was signalled by Reagan when he began his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, site of the notorious killing of the civil rights activists in 1964.

The GOP has been the party of race-baiting ever since. Has she forgotten Willie Horton?

[slj0101]

57. Gotta love semantics.

Yes, the Democratic party WAS the party of slavery, but since the 1860s both parties have undergone major ideological shifts throughout history. Her statement is simplistic to say the least.

As for the war thing, it is true that a Democratic president was in office during almost every major conflict the US was involved in during the 20th century, but again, her statement is simplistic.

[BuyingThyme]

58. Because so many Dems changed their tunes after the 2006 election.

[Freddie Stubbs]

62. What does that have to do with her misstating facts?

Did the Democrats changing their tunes make her go insane? Did they compel her to become a liar?

[BuyingThyme]

73. No. You can argue about how accurate she was down to the last word,

but only because you don't want to face up to the basic message.

Her post is much more accurate than yours, so maybe the question you should be asking is why you hold yourself to a lower standard.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. I'm Offended That She Implied I Condoned Slavery Or Unjust Wars

eom

[BuyingThyme]

70. No you're not. Unless you're really, really old.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

66. She's a "useful idiot"

If she shames Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table, then good on her. Otherwise, I think she's a loon.

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. Yet now it may be harder for Pelosi to push for impeachment

She will be criticized for flip-flopping for political reasons.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. Asshat Has Sixteen Months Left In Office

By the time there was a vote in the Senate he would probably have six months left in office... Talk about a quixotic mission...

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. Since you seem to have a talent for math,

figure this out for me. An Iraqi dies every 10 minutes and a US soldier dies every 10 hours. How many more will be dead in 16 months?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. I Don't Know How To Address Non Sequiturs

eom

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. The same number if Pelosi supports impeachment

As there aren't enough votes in the Senate for removal, the only thing impeachmetn would be is a distraction from the war.

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. And you think they would continue to wage this illegal war

if impeachment is on the table? I don't. But we won't know for sure till we get there. And doing nothing just continues the needless deaths.

[knight_of_the_star]

104. They will

If you really think an impeachment attempt will get Bush to stop, think twice about that. When SCOTUS ruled against how the prisoners in Gitmo were being treated he got the GOP in Congress to pass a law making it ok, even if impeachment was underway he would STILL keep the troops in Iraq and find excuses to escalate the mess legal or not.

Assuming that Bush will stop the war because of impeachment is naive in the extreme considering his continued disregard for rule of law, which is reason enough to remove him, but thinking that bringing him up for impeachment is a demonstration to me of a total lack of understanding of how the man ticks.

[proud2BlibKansan]

117. They are closing Gittmo

I live within spitting distance of Leavenworth and my military contacts are saying Gittmo is closing and the detainees are being moved to Leavenworth. I have also been contacted by several activists around the country to ask for help in setting up demonstrations there. So yes, the pressure is working. And I really do doubt bush will continue much of his crap if he is facing impeachment.

[struggle4progress]

208. The Administration jabbers out of both sides of its mouth about closing Gitmo:

a thousand people say a thousand different things. Your "contacts" are merely repeating rumors.

The Administration deliberately chose Gitmo as a place "beyond the reach of law" and has the curious problem, that it lacks evidence against most of the Gitmo prisoners. It really doesn't want the prisoners on US soil, near standard courts.

The last I saw from an Administration spokesman, they were talking about relocating Gitmo prisoners, not to the US but to prisons in Afghanistan. Before that, they were insisting Gitmo couldn't be closed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. It would probably embolden Bush and his supporters

Nothing like politics to distract people from the real issues.

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. Now that is probably the silliest post of the day.

Politics is not the distraction - Paris, or Dead White Girl is the distraction. Politics is the issue.

[ClintonTyree]

202. True......

a lot of people here at DU seem to think there's an iron-clad majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress. They think that since we have a razor thin majority that everything they want should happen immediately, with no questions asked. JUST DO IT, seems to be the mantra.

The Democrats have had a razor thin majority for all of 6 months now and they're supposed to undo 6 1/2 years of Bush evil overnight. :eyes: Talk about unrealistic expectations! I think Pelosi and other Democrats were right in giving Bush until September to show that his "Iraq attack" is working. It gives fence sitting Republicans and DINOs all the more rope to hang themselves with if they don't oppose the war then. It was not practicable to immediately end the war when their "majority" took office. The votes weren't there and it would have gotten nowhere. Now, 6 months later, Bush has more then enough rope to hang himself and so do the Republican toadies who follow him. It's getting a little too close to election time for them to stay attached to Bush's coattails.

Knee jerk reactionism is a mainstay here at DU. Many who think themselves so politically savvy actually have no idea what it takes to end Bush's mistake in Iraq, what it takes to get the votes to overturn years of Bush fuck-ups. It just CAN'T happen overnight. Six months. For six months Ms. Pelosi has been Speaker of the House and people here are ready to draw and quarter her. It's never occurred to them that she might be building a bi-partisan force that cannot be ignored by Bush come September. No. Everything must happen NOW! :eyes:

I hate the fact that our men and women, along with countless Iraqis, are still dying everyday in Iraq. But I've been around long enough to know that change doesn't happen overnight. My guess is that in September Ms. Pelosi will have the votes to get us the hell out of Iraq. She had to give the few Republicans we need to get the job done a little "wiggle room". NOW they can say that the Iraqis and Bush have failed without appearing to abandon their principles and constituents. I imagine AFTER the decision to leave Iraq is made this fall that impeachment WILL be back on the table. Arguing for impeachment before getting the U.S. out of Iraq would be an exercise in futility. Why can't people see that?

Many at DU act like how they accuse Bush of acting: like a petulant, impatient spoiled brat. If, in September, the things I've said about Ms. Pelosi DON'T come to pass then I'll eat every bit of crow due me. I'll prostrate myself before all and suffer the slings and arrows of all DUers who "told me so". :)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

76. That's true...

but I think it will be worse for her if she stonewalls it. She made a huge mistake in taking impeachment off the table, it will a bigger mistake to be seen as aiding and abetting in the Bush Administration's getaway.

[Ronnie]

113. Two things:

(1) If we try to impeach Bush, the Democrat who becomes president in 2008 will be constantly threatened with it.
(2) Very little else will get done, including stopping the war. Those of us who thought Pelosi and Reid could quickly put an end to this war are the ones who need a lesson in how our government works.

I feel so sorry for Cindy Sheehan. Every time I see the pain on her face, I think of how all the other parents, wives, husbands, children, and other loved ones feel. She is the symbol of our pain. I wish she wouldn't become a politician.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

206. I don't worry about #1....

Any president who does what Bush has done, Republican or Democrat, deserves to be impeached. In fact, if we don't impeach this president, then we have lowered the bar so much for his successors that one shudders to think what a future president might attempt. Impeachment should be a threat.

From a purely partisan standpoint, I want Bush in office until 2009 because he's such a poster child for why conservatives should never, ever be allowed to run the government. But on a broader, civic level, he should be impeached and to hell with the consequences. No public servant should get a free pass after this type of brazen, criminal behavior.

Here's what I see coming and both of them are good. Either the "endangered" Republicans in the House and Senate will vote with the Democrats to start a pull-out from Iraq (which ends the war - yea!) or they will vote to support this administration. If they support this administration in prolonging a war that the American people clearly do not wish to fight, then they are committing political suicide. There will be a massive shift to the Democrats who, if they pursue a people-centered agenda, might have a solid majority for the foreseeable future (yea!).

[Totally Committed]

68. How about SHE'S EQUALLY PISSED OFF AT BOTH SIDES?

She expected nothing from the Republicans, but the Democrats made a HUGE deal about withdrawal from Iraq until the election (which they won) was over, and then they were back to their usual don't-rock-the-boat appeasement and collusion of and with the other side. *She is probably as fed-up-to-the-teeth with them as we all are.

*In all fairness, Barbara Boxer did wave a gavel and chide the Repubs about elections having consequences, but a gavel waved does not equal haveing our troops withdrawn, and Bush and Cheney both being impeached.

At least that my opinion.

TC

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. Did Pelosi campaign on a platfrom withdrawing from Iraq?

:shrug:

[Thirtieschild]

75. When I was growing up - 1940s -

the meme was that we went to war under Democrats and had a depression under Republicans. That was before - way before - Granada, Gulf war, Iraq.

[Enrique]

77. because she's angry

with good reason, imo.

She's angry at the democratic party, and she's lashing out. Whether she's right, I'm not sure. She might be.

Regardless of Franz Ferdinand and Poland, the U.S. entered both of those wars under Democratic presidents. So in that sense she's right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. Yeah, Damn That Roosevelt...

He should have ignored Pearl Harbor and left the rest of the world to its fate... If I was president I would have ignored the America Firsters and declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded the Sudatenland...

FDR= Good

WW2 Revisionists = Bad

[Enrique]

109. Debating WWII with Cindy Sheehan

what's the point?

She's angry at the Democratic Party and lashing out.

I'm agry at them too, and I would guess you are too. Maybe you and I haven't chosen to lash out the way she did, but to each their own.

[Hobarticus]

146. Because loudly demonstrating ignorance hurts yourself, and all you stand for?!?

It shows that she's all hyperbole and not to be taken seriously.

I'm mad at Dems too, but rewriting history just makes one look foolish.

Just guessing.

[qazplm]

199. entered

does not mean started. Escalated does not mean started. words have meaning and if we are going to parse things as much as possible simply so that she can be "right" then that is the kind of hero worship, we will truck no criticism of her that we rightly lambaste the neo-cons for in regards to Bush.

She was over simplistic, she was just plain wrong and if she wants to be a leader and run for office, she doesn't have the luxury of spouting off that kind of crap unchallenged.

[DireStrike]

83. Other: poll is biased

If the option were there, I would vote for "Sheehan made a careless, inflammatory statement."

See post #2. She meant to say that, or something like it. Obviously nobody would argue that democrats started either world war, for example. She's angry and made a mistake.

[nini]

85. She probably thinks she'll become Speaker of the House when she beats Pelosi too

That's why she picked Pelosi to run against. Then she can dictate policy and all :sarcasm:

:eyes:

[philosophie_en_rose]

88. Because she's arrogant and uneducated.

[Dawgs]

97. She's an embarrassment.

I think it would do us all good to ignore her. And, when I say all, I mean all Democrats.

[LostInAnomie]

105. She's right. We should purge the party of all these pro-slavery dems!

I demand these 180 year old legislators be out of a job! :eyes:

Can we finally quit acting like Cindy have anything of value to say? She's become a clown that only works to marginalize the anti-war movement. As long as she's around the media will always have a useful idiot to point to and label us as a group of irrational fools.

[BlooInBloo]

107. I had no problem with her until she declared that Democrats are the pro-slavery party...

... Now she can just go to hell.

[EFerrari]

119. But she's technically correct. It was a stupid thing to bring up

but it isn't factually incorrect.

[LostInAnomie]

122. Actually, it is factually incorrect.

She said "The Democrats are the party of slavery...", which is not true. We are not the party of slavery and haven't been for 142 years. To make such a claim means turning a blind eye to all the civil rights legislation that we've passed and all the work we have done to combat poverty.

And it is not factually correct to say Democrats "...were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle." I believe Hitler might have had a little to do with starting WW2.

This is Faux News level of cherry picking facts and she should be ashamed of herself.

[EFerrari]

123. If we haven't been for 142 years, there is an obvious inference

to be drawn.

Let's not do this. Imo, she could have made a better case instead of scattering buckshot.

/oops

[DemocratSinceBirth]

183. She Also Said The Federal Income Tax Was Unconstitutional

How do you defend that observation?

[EFerrari]

214. I don't know enough about either to comment. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

215. Crazy?

:shrug:

[rinsd]

152. No, The Democratic Party were the party of slavery would be correct

The Democratic Party are the party of slavery is wrong.

[EFerrari]

160. It would have to be singular to be correct, rinsd. n/t

[merh]

108. Amen

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

124. Congratulations. You just insulted the person who has done more

than anyone else to muster the anti-war movement. And, for bonus points, you did it on her birthday. Nice going.

[LostInAnomie]

131. Oh, bullshit!

I don't give a damn if it's her birthday or not. If she's going to make bullshit arguments about the party of social change for the last hundred years she deserves to have them thrown in her face. And if she going to throw her hat in the political ring she better get used to it.

I'm tired of Sheehan supporters acting like she is the only voice of the anti-war movement. There were millions upon millions in the US that were against this war LONG before Camp Casey. And since Camp Casey all she's done is help marginalize the anti-war movement through foolish chanting at Democrats, week long hunger strikes, and meeting with people like Hugo Chavez.

This whole cult of personality crap around her is getting old.

[Mike Daniels]

205. So it's her birthday BFD

If one doesn't want to get reamed out on her birthday one shouldn't make ignorant comments.

This is the same woman that said there hasn't been one justified war throughout history.
I have a feeling that Sheehan is a population of one when it comes to that opinion and it further exposes her ignorance in that arena.

[EFerrari]

213. Nicely said, Mike. n/t

[SoCalDem]

114. Wars are not like pimples.. they don't just "break out"

They are the result of YEARS of unanswered slights, unfettered colonial greed, or ridiculously unfair policies.

they often span MANY adminsitrations.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

127. For the record, Woodrow Wilson (D), decided to get involved in World War I

It can be argued that if the US had stayed out, there would've been a negotiated settlement, and the Treaty of Versailles would not have had the same punitive measures against Germany and other central powers that it had, and some argued that the economic chaos caused by the heavy war reparations simply made it easier for people like Hitler to capitalize on the situation.

[goodgd_yall]

129. Firstly, she's probably meaning wars the U.S. was involved in

though she was not precise enough in what she said to know for sure. I'd say you could argue the U.S. did not have to respond to the Lusitania sinking by going to war. WWII was justified since we were attacked and the country DID attack the actual aggressor, not a trumped up aggressor as * did with Iraq. Korea, also could be argued to have been avoided by taking other means than war against North Korea. We first got entangled in Vietnam under Eisenhower, but Johnson escalated our involvement to a war. Kosovo, Democrat, although, IMO, it was justified. The wars in Grenada, Panama, Persian Gulf, and Iraq are all Repuglican. So, not counting the (IMO) unjustified wars, it's 50/50, 4 to 4. That sounds about right. I don't think either party can be considered a "Peace" party.

[Freddie Stubbs]

130. So, you're saying that the statement is a half truth?

:shrug:

[goodgd_yall]

134. No, because her statement is

that the Democratic Party started every war in the 20th century. She's not right at all. Even if you don't county the present war (since it is a 21st century war---she got that one on a technicality).

[ComerPerro]

132. I'm leaning more toward the "intentional lie" option

[uppityperson]

137. She was making a point using an over statement. Have you asked her why?

I bet if you asked she would tell you, rather than asking the opinion of strangers on a message board.

[Alexander]

140. Because she's talking like Bob Dole circa 1976?

"MR. MEARS: Senator Dole, ten days ago when Senator Mondale raised the issues of Watergate and the Nixon pardon, you called it the start of a campaign mud-slinging. Two years ago when you were running for the Senate you said that the pardon was prematurely granted and that it was a - and that it was a mistake. You were quoted by the Kansas City Times as saying, "You can't ignore our tradition of equal application of the law." Did you approve of the Nixon pardon when President Ford granted it? Do you approve of it now, and if the issue was fair game in your 1974 campaign in Kansas, why is it not an appropriate topic now?

MR. DOLE: Well it is an appropriate topic, I guess, but it's not a very good issue any more than the war in Vietnam would be or World War II, or World War I, or the war in Korea, all Democrat wars, all in this century. I figured up the other day, if we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it'd be about one point six million Americans - enough to fill the city of Detroit. Now if we wanna go back and rake that over and over and over, we can do that.

MR. MONDALE: I think Senator Dole has richly earned his reputation as a hatchet man tonight, by implying, and stating, that World War II and the Korean War were Democratic wars. Does he really mean to suggest to the American people that there was a partisan difference over our involvement in the war to fight Nazi Germany? I don't think any reasonable American would accept that. Does he really mean to suggest that it was only partisanship that got us into the war in Korea? Does he really mean to forget that part of the record where Mr. Nixon and the Republican party wanted us to get involved earlier in the war in Vietnam, and long after Mr. Nixon and the Republican party promised to finish the war in Vietnam, they kept urging us forward, and that in fact it was the Democratic Congress that passed the law ending the war in Vietnam and preventing a new war in Angola?"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. WORD

MR. MONDALE: I think Senator Dole has richly earned his reputation as a hatchet man tonight, by implying, and stating, that World War II and the Korean War were Democratic wars. Does he really mean to suggest to the American people that there was a partisan difference over our involvement in the war to fight Nazi Germany? I don't think any reasonable American would accept that. Does he really mean to suggest that it was only partisanship that got us into the war in Korea?


That was Walter Mondale's brightest moment...

I remember that debate vividly as well as the debate where Gerald Ford "liberated" Eastern Europe...

[Cameron27]

154. Good lord, she could have lifted the screed

from asshat Dole. Thanks for posting, I'd forgotten that gem.

[robcon]

148. She's a dope.

As Lenin said - she's a "useful idiot." She was a publicity magnet against the war. But when we probed more deeply, there was no there, there.

[WinkyDink]

149. The Party of slavery evolved into the Party of integration. Is she off her rocker?

[treestar]

150. I would say doesn't know history

Because it is a very shallow view to consider that the Democrats started the war because they were in office - the war maybe started when they were in office, at least as to the World Wars it is unfair to blame whoever was in office at the time. Republicans wouldn't have responded to Pearl Harbor the same way?

And then she shows she was ignorant when she joined the Democrats. Like she only just found this out, or she wouldn't have been with the Democrats.

Or was she ever?

Her position in society at this point show that we rely too much on emotionality and sentimentality over reason. When, to protest Vietnam, did anyone have to show they'd lost a son in that war? In those days we knew the difference between personal issues and political ones.

[Geek_Girl]

151. I think it's a pretty stupid thing to say

But I suppose she's serious about running as an independent and she's attacking the democratic party.

[last_texas_dem]

157. She's either intentionally lying or doesn't know her history

What I'm amazed at is the number of DUers who apparently believe what she's saying is true. Just how many wars are they willing to omit for the sake of claiming Sheehan's ridiculous statement is true? Pretty much every President of both parties during the twentieth century sent American troops to one war or another. (Perhaps every President, with the possible exception of a couple of the "isolationist" Republicans of the 1920's, and maybe another one- Taft?- from the early part of the century who I'm forgetting.) Notice that in her statement she doesn't specify "major" wars or anything along those lines. Think of all of the military conflicts that American troops were involved in during the twentieth century. If one is going to split hairs and say that only "declared" wars count, then we haven't been involved in one since World War II, and Sheehan obviously didn't mean this since the "other Bush debacle" wouldn't count, either. Her statement is full of shit; she can't even be considered to be right on a technicality.

Oh yeah, and Sheehan coming out and attacking the Democrats as the "party of slavery" is about as relevant as if she were to attack them for supporting inflation because they once advocated the silver standard. What century is she making this speech in again?

[WI_DEM]

158. The woman is upset at the Dems and lashing out with some justification.

[robcon]

163. Lashing out at Dems? With some justification?

Justification? What a pathetic excuse for mistaken history and wild accusations.

Gee... do you think your sympathy for Sheehan colors your "justification" idea? Is blatantly incorrect history now "justified" because it's Cindy Sheehan?

Sheehan contributed a lot to the publicity against Bush's war. Her time in the limelight should be over - she's an ignorant person, who's overplayed her notoriety.

[K8-EEE]

164. I've always supported Cindy but

that is a stupid comment....ignorant.

[knowledgeispwr]

166. Interesting...

that so far 19 DUers think Democrats "started every war in the 20th century except the other Bush debacle."


Very telling.

[Elspeth]

169. If she's only talking about Congressionally declared wars (ie real war ) then she is correct

WWI: Wilson (D)
WWII: Roosevelt(D)

These were both wars declared by Congress.

Everything since WWII has been either a police action or originated the executive branch:

Korea: Truman (D)
Vietnam: Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson (started with a Republican bailing out the French. Escalated under Democrats.)
Granada: Reagan (R)
Panama: George Bush pere (R)
Iraq: George Bush pere (R)
Somalia: Clinton (D)
Kosovo: Clinton (D)

(This doesn't CIA training and wars in South/Central America, Asia, etc.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

177. How Is She Correct?

"The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle."

-Cindy Sheehan


Did the Democrats attack Poland in 1939?

[MrMickeysMom]

170. Wait a minute, did I bump into the "senseless distortion" thread by mistake

Yep, I think so.

[bonito]

171. Some of us very afraid of Cindy

The truth which leads us to liberation from all illusions and enslavements is perceived in the innermost depths of our being, where we are shut off from all others. those who have attained to its knowledge finds oneself in an exalted solitude. One is not likely to find ones way out of it to the extent, and for the purpose, of enlightening others who are accustomed to, and quite at home in, their darkness unless some other propulsive force of compassion arises within themselves and causes him to do so.
Not sure where this originated from but is very insightful.

[babylonsister]

175. O-m-m-m.

[bonito]

176. Not hard to fathom though

It's becoming, in fact all ready present lol

The only difference between the inside and the outside is our perception of more than one.
Me thinks. :hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

184. Are You Suggesting

Are you suggesting that a person who claims the Democrats are the party of slavery, have started almost every war in the twentieth century, and that the federal income tax is unconstitutional has found some objective or transcendent truth?

We all appreciate the enormity of her loss but some of us don't believe it gives her a license to rewrite history...

[HughMoran]

178. She was describing the party in power when war was entered

...at least that's what I thought she meant. We know that the Dems didn't technically "start" the wars, but I supposeit is fun to nitpick if you already have an issue with the lady. I am ambivalent about her - I think her intent was reasonable and not even anti-Democrat per se.

[LostInAnomie]

186. No, that's what she meant.

Read the whole quote. It's a ridiculous screed attempting to assign collective guilt on the Democratic Party for past sins.

" I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don't tell me the Democrats are our "Saviors" because I am not buying it especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George's abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity. Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people not the politicians. "

No attempt at context, no qualifiers of any type. She said what she meant and should be held to it. Honestly,are we really supposed to take someone seriously that still holds slavery against the Democratic Party?

[HughMoran]

190. I just don't take this kind of frustrated screed that seriously

I can clearly detect the frustration she is feeling. She won't win anyway making statements like that - she is simply trying to "be in the way" as best she can. I wish more Americans - right or wrong on every detail - would simply be "in the way" so that the corporate controlled media and mindless followers would have at least some opposition. The Dems could surely use a little pushing - plus, she makes the Dems seem moderate i.e. the post about Faux showing Pelosi as dignified & Sheehan as a moonbat - when have they ever showed Pelosi as dignified? I "get" what she is doing and absolutely do NOT feel threatened by it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

187. Hmmm

According to your interpetation then she's saying the Democrats are the war party... The inference from that is that all wars are unjustified... I would have declared war on Germany when they passed the Nuremberg Laws and certainly when they invaded Poland...

She also said the federal income tax is unconstitutional and the Dems are the party of slavery... That is the tripe that can be found at any right wing board...

[HughMoran]

192. Not at all

Read my other post above as a better indication of my feelings on this. Why are folks feeling so threatened by this little screed? It ensures that she is unelectable - where's the threat?

[HowHasItComeToThis]

180. DOES SHE LIVE IN PELOSI'S DISTRICT????????????????

THAT IS THE ONLY WAY SHE CAN RUN

[Alexander]

181. She can move there...

Besides, I think technically you only have to be a member of the state, not the district.

[AZ Criminal JD]

185. Under the Constitution she can run

You don't have to live in a Congressional District to run for election. You do have to be a resident of the State if you are elected. (Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2).

[nolabels]

182. I am sure glad she said it, at least we know someone is listening

Yea, i only know after the thousands or probably MILLIONS of times that just the most ordinary citizen has been repeatedly lied to. They have been lied to about so many things from the imperialist's that the control of information has now become impossible for them to maintain and that things must be changing. Too bad Cindy has offended so many delicate ears with things they didn't want to hear :-)

I am sure others have seen this list / link before though it has disappeared off of google for the the time being :think:

I just thought i would bring back for bit, because it's a long list and just kind of throws a big dark blanket on people who think they are seeing daylight. It's like forty pages long with all kinds of links and footnotes, really is kind of a lot of information in ways

basic stats for US imperialism
by cecil Sunday, Nov. 24, 2002 at 4:18 PM
a reference guide for activists.
http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725_comment.php

[Jim Sagle]

188. Wow - 33 pieces of fascist rubbish on DU. Mods, please get rid of them.

[LostInAnomie]

193. ????

Elaborate please.

[HughMoran]

196. ????

Please elaborate...

[Usrename]

198. Projecting much, are we?

If ever anyone's mental health was in question...

[Jim Sagle]

203. Wow...talk about projection...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Usrename]

211. Collective schizophrenia

...
Gabel elaborates a lengthy definition of the political world view which is correlated with
alienated and manipulated political life under the rule of schizophrenic/autistic ideologies
which exhibit a low degree of fidelity to reality. Gabel called this the “police concept of
history;” if he were writing today, he might well have called it the intelligence
community or CIA theory of history. Gabel writes: “The police concept of history is the
negation of the historical dialectic, in other words the negation of history. …History’s
driving force is not the ensemble of objective forces but good or evil individual
action…since the ‘event’ is no longer understood as the normal substratum of the course
of History, but as miracle or catastrophe; it is no longer dependent on scientific
explanation but on black or white magic. In the Manichean diptych of this view, the hero
(leader) and the traitor represent two poles of the same principle of reificational negation
of the autonomy of history. It is therefore a pseudo-history, a non-dialectical result either
of success due to the genius of the leader or failure explicable through treason; an
authentic ‘syndrome of external action’ permits the privileged system to evade eventual
responsibility. The police concept of history represents the extreme form of political
alienation; it is both a sociocentrism which dichotomizes the world into a privileged
system and a non-privileged remainder , and a
phenomenon of consciousness of a schizophrenic nature. Since the privileged system is
considered as perfect, extra-temporal and extra-dialectical, the event – particularly the
unfavorable event – can only be explained by means of external action; it is experienced
as an unexpected, ‘undeserved’ catastrophe, which is no longer integrated into the normal
course of events whose succession constitutes the threat of concrete, dialectical
temporality. One can compare this ensemble with the two specific elements in the clinical
picture of schizophrenia, the syndrome of external action and the deranged experience of
the end of the world (Weltuntergangserlebnis, abbreviated as WUE by German authors),
the clinical translation of the appearance of the dialectic in a reified world which can
accept the event only as a catastrophe.” (Gabel 115-116, with my interpolations)
...
PDF Warning: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf

[Rex]

191. Dunno?

What do you think?

[independentpiney]

204. Wasn't there a more flattering pic for the 'I support Cindy' sig?

That squat just aint right.

[NaturalHigh]

209. Because she's a nut...

and she wants her name in the news again.