Here we go again...

[Mythsaje]

If one takes the context of the statement without the specific wording, it's easy to say the "flavor" of the commentary is that the Democratic Party isn't, in itself, an "anti-war" party. At least one of the top contenders for the office of President at this point is more arguing against the way the war was run rather than against the war itself.

Cindy needs a speech writer if she's going to stay in the game. She's a decent writer herself, but it takes a certain amount of talent to put something like this in the right context not to come out sounding like you're simply spewing venom in all directions.

Cindy is anti-war now. That seems to be her foremost expression. Not just THIS war, but all wars. She's certainly not the only mother in history to take that stance, particularly after losing a child. And it's entirely possible that she wanted to remind us that the Democratic Party has never historically been "anti-war" as many of us here are.

I don't think she's gone batshit crazy, or is deliberately lying, so much as I believe that she isn't a particularly nuanced writer and didn't get the point across the way she intended. It's unfortunate, since I think the point I got out of it is relatively important to note.

The Democratic Party, while certainly better than the alternative, is most definitely not perfect and has made some staggering errors in judgment along the way, often simply in continuing or escalating failed Republican policies. Kinda like THIS particular Republican debacle.

It's not out of the question that the next President, Republican OR Democratic, might see fit to magnify the conflict in one way or another rather than seeking a pullout. ESPECIALLY if some advisor gives him or her the notion that "victory" is actually possible. To do what GW and Crew failed to do? What a political coup THAT would be.

History is complex and, as most people with any sense understand, the fact that the adage "history is written by the winners" suggests it's rarely as cut and dried as it may at first appear. From what I can tell, Cindy made a few valid points but leaned FAR too heavily on hyperbole and statements entirely out of context.

But, hey, at least we've got another excuse to be shitty toward one another. The last one was running out of steam.

Carry on, everyone.

:hi:

edited to fix a grammatical error

[Cleita]

1. Cindy is an honest person with honest opinions and it's too much

for those whose sacred cows she gores. She shouldn't go into politics. That takes triangulating, deceit and lying, not a good business for straight shooters.

[Mythsaje]

2. A certain amount of bluntness might be an advantage

but if you're going to whack someone with a bat, make sure it's a solid bat. The statements she made most recently are all over the place and most of us are left trying to figure out if she's gone batshit crazy, is deliberately lying, or simply didn't explain her meaning well enough.

I'm going with the third option.

You can be blunt, but damn well make sure you're on target and not exaggerating or leaving something out of your statement otherwise it's completely counter-productive.

[ComerPerro]

4. you call what she said about Dems "straight shooting"? Please...

[Cleita]

6. Yes it is. She's saying what she means right or wrong and

that is straight shooting. Frankly, I'm very disenchanted with the Dems myself and have been for decades, although I keep it to myself mostly. I kept hoping we will go back to what we once stood for, the working classes and the underclasses. The whole Green Party movement was a symptom of what was wrong with the Democrats. This split should not have happened if our leadership hadn't become so business friendly and well centrist.

Well I'm disgusted enough that I don't work with the Democratic Party locally anymore like I once did. I find my time is better spent pursuing the issues that are important to me and not so important to the Democratic Party. Sure they talk about health care and poverty but do little about it.

[ComerPerro]

8. If she honestly believes what she said, then she has some major knowledge gaps

[Mythsaje]

10. Hyperbole, half-truths, and misinformation

is not "straight-shooting."

Saying the first damn thing that comes to your mind without considering the ramifications of your words, or the accuracy of your statements, is just foolish.

For the very reason we're seeing here today in response to it.

Like I said in the O.P. IF she was suggesting what I said, she has a valid point. If she's just ranting and throwing crap at the Democrats because she's pissed off, she isn't helping herself, us, or the Dems out there who ARE decent.

[Cleita]

12. You're a writer. If I'm annoyed with what someone has said

and if I think it's inaccurate, I write them a letter and tell them where they are wrong and try to back it up with sources. Sometimes in my research, I find out I was the one who was wrong and they were right. So if you feel she is misinformed, put up what facts you have to counter hers instead of just saying she's ranting. Even Michael Moore tonight on Larry King called Dr. Sanjy Gupta a liar, but then he backed it up with why he was a liar as much as Larry King would let him get his facts out.

[Mythsaje]

18. How is it that I post something saying she may have had a point

that was lost in the rhetoric and I have to defend that position from people trying to defend HER? In what universe does that make sense?

Democrats didn't start every American War in the 20th Century except Gulf War I, though it can certainly be argued that they sure as hell didn't oppose any of them very stridently. I personally think the anti-war crowd was WRONG when it came to WWII, though I'm not sure I'd say the same for any of the other American wars this last Century.

As I stated in my OP, THAT position has some merit. Just saying "All the wars but the first gulf war were "started" by Democrats simply isn't true. Calling the Democrats the "Party of Slavery" seems a bit...over the top as well.

If she was trying to make a real point, she failed miserably. And that's unfortunate.

[Cleita]

22. Okay, I'm not going to state who started what first just

when we got involved, who was president, the person who would have had to be the Commander-in-chief for war operations.

WWI - Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

WWII - Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat.

Korea - Harry Truman, a Democrat

Vietnam - John Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrats

Panama invasion - Ronald Reagan, a Republican

Gulf War I - George H. W. Bush, a Republican

Bosnia - Bill Clinton, a Democrat

Kosovo/Serbia - Bill Clinton, a Democrat

So two wars were started by Republicans and the other six were by Democrats. I think I see where Cindy is coming from, but maybe she needs to be more exact in her statements.

She could have said, "Most of the wars in the twentieth century were engaged in while there were Democrats in the White House."

I think that statement was probably closer to what she meant. Peace.

[Mythsaje]

23. Maybe she should have just said

that "the Democratic Party has never shown itself to be "anti-War" in any meaningful sense. Most of the wars conducted during the 20th Century were overseen and/or escalated by Democratic administrations."

Of course, that's what I mean by nuance.

[Cleita]

27. If she's going to go into politics, she will need to be just that.

I still have great admiration for her and let's face it she's a housewife thrown into the limelight not a professional speech maker. I think she has done very well up there on the podium and is entitled to learn from mistakes. I couldn't have done it.

[Mythsaje]

30. Or hire some really skilled speech-writers...

Since she has some writing skill herself, it would probably be a matter of learning as she went from the people who were writing (or co-writing) her speeches and press releases and the like. But it's damned important to have your words taken the way you MEANT them, not as something else entirely. That's just bad juju all the way around.

[Cleita]

32. I don't think she needs speech writers but fact checkers. Maybe

someone gave her that talking point that didn't have their facts straight.

[Mythsaje]

33. There really is little significant difference between what she said

and how I put the same basic premise "the Democratic Party has never shown itself to be "anti-War" in any meaningful sense. Most of the wars conducted during the 20th Century were overseen and/or escalated by Democratic administrations."

The difference is in how it's expressed. The way she said it, it sounded a bit kooky. The way I put it, well, it's pretty much a basic truth. Yet they're saying nearly the same thing.

Yeah, she needs to learn a few things.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. What is she supposed to pay these speech writers with?

You are a good writer. Why don't you VOLUNTEER to help her? She is building a grassroots movement and is strapped for cash.

[Mythsaje]

44. It's not a bad idea, really...

Though it really isn't my style to push myself where I'm not invited. It's been suggested to me here several times that I should get into the speech writing business.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. If you are interested, PM me

I can put you in touch with Cindy.

[ComerPerro]

3. you can't have it both ways though. But those who worship her try so hard

I mean, really. If she truly is a visionary leader who "speaks for" so many here, then how can we just brush this off as a mistake in wording? Maybe its just me, but I usually would prefer someone who can think things through fully and properly articulate my point of view to do my speaking for me.

Moreover, if she is strong and is to be admired for her strength in the face of adversity, then why should her followers fly off the handle and go completely apeshit whenever anyone says anything even remotely in opposition to her? Doesn't that just imply that she isn't strong enough to defend herself?

You cannot demand respect for Sheehan as a leader of the anti-war movement, but then brush off things like this as well-meaning mixups in wording from the inexperienced.

[Mythsaje]

5. She sure has spoken for a lot of people here

for quite some time now. It was this last statement that made me sit up and really focus on what it seemed to say. If you dig past all the nonsense, there very well could be a valid point. I'm not sure why she put it quite the way she did and, frankly, I'm disappointed in it.

Remember that a lot of DUers have met her and consider her a personal friend too. Some of the things said about her is going to be taken personally for that reason alone.

And let's keep in mind that "leader" doesn't necessary mean "diplomat" or "politician," after all.

[ComerPerro]

7. yeah, but the problem isn't with her lack of tact in this case

its basically that you (you being the generic you, not you, too many you's) can't chalk up this statement to her being naive or inexperienced if you are then going to turn around and say that she is a person of credibility who should be taken seriously and listened too. After all, why take seriously someone who obviously has major knowledge gaps in a subject of which she is supposedly a top leader and spokesperson.

As much as some would like to give her the benefit of doubt here, this just seems like more of her over-the-top rhetoric. Remember a few weeks back when she falsely claimed that several people here called her an "attention whore", among other accusations?

[Mythsaje]

11. That wasn't a false accusation...

I saw it myself.

I think this statement was foolish, no doubt about it. But I'm unsure of whether the intent was to misinform or if she herself was misinformed, or her anger got the better of her and she didn't look it over once she'd calmed down to see if it was something she wanted to say publicly.

[ComerPerro]

13. Only a few posts, mostly by one poster, were ever produced.

I imagine she intentionally lied about this community just so she could score more points as a martyr, to go with the "tired of persecution" angle she had in her (supposed) goodbye announcement. She knew that her followers would instantly forgive her, and she probably feels she can say whatever she wants about a bunch of random nobodies.

I always thought it was odd how she could dish out insults and attacks like crazy and apparently with minimal thought, but couldn't take criticism. But that's another topic...

[Mythsaje]

14. Well, they're sure more common these days...

I saw one myself right after it was posted. And who knows how many similar ones were blocked? I sure don't. It's hard to "produce" them if they've been deleted, now isn't it?

[ComerPerro]

15. if that's the case, they would have been deleted rather quickly and she wouldn't have seen them

[Mythsaje]

16. She may have never seen them at all...

She might've simply heard it second hand from any number of DUers who know her.

[ComerPerro]

17. at best it is a case of good intentions producing bad results

but I just have a feeling her motives were more sinister

[Mythsaje]

19. Sinister?

She's a lefty? Left-handed, I mean?

:evilgrin:

Seriously, though. Are you actually ascribing to her "sinister" motives when the only reason she started all this was to get some sense of justice for the death of her son?

I'm not sure I follow.

[ComerPerro]

20. I think she and her supporters are tripping on feelings of self-importance

she says something half true and full of empty rhetoric, they eat it up and start affirming it everywhere, she sees that reaction and it validates her lies. Naturally, she is gonna have to go even bigger next time, to a bigger response and rallying among the faithful.

Rush Limbaugh does the same thing.

[Swamp Rat]

29. You are comparing Rush Limbaugh to Cindy Sheehan???

:wow:

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. Are you shitting me?

Another on my ignore list that needs to stay there. A DUer actually compared rush to Cindy?? Sweet Jesus.

[Breeze54]

34. Oh please!! You actually think Cindy has

blind followers when they say, "Cindy Speaks for me"?

You are unable to read between the lines, or so it seems.

Sorry for you and the others like you. :eyes:

[ComerPerro]

38. how is mindless support of lies like "Dems caused all war" anything short of blind support?

Ironic thing is, some of those very same people take pleasure in calling anyone who disagrees with Sheehan a blind follower of Dems.

[Mythsaje]

40. Well, it's not as if they've ever been the "anti-war" party.

And it's no doubt that Democratic administrations have done their share to help the various wars along.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. I consider her a friend

and I am spending less and less time here because of the Cindy bashing and the DLC invasion. My ignore list is getting long enough that it seems silly to post in such a hostile environment. And I am sure it will only get worse as the election in 08 approaches.

The thing that really frustrates me (and the reason I defend Cindy against the bashers) is that my feet ARE on the ground, in my community and in my country, trying to end this damn war. In the past month, I have been to DC, Chicago and Crawford, TX. I am now broke from travel expenses but would do it again in a heartbeat, regardless of the cost.

I doubt many DUers would actually support continuing our military invasion of Iraq. Yet they sit in the comfort of their homes and type horrible insults against the person we all need to thank for bringing life back into the anti-war movement.

It frustrates me to no end that I personally know some of these Cindy haters and I know for a fact that they NEVER come to a rally, or a vigil or a free movie or even a meeting to discuss strategies. All they do is blog here and since they type the words that indicate they oppose the war, they feel it is okay to criticize what those of us out there actually trying to end it are doing.

I discovered a long time ago that it was time to put my money where my mouth is and hit the pavement. I do what I can but I don't do a tenth of what Cindy Sheehan does. I respect her because she lost her son, but I respect her more because she has turned her grief into activism.

I honestly have more respect for war mongers who stand in the street holding signs opposing our anti-war rallies than I do for anyone who has NEVER done a damn thing to end the war other than type on a discussion board.

I owe DU a lot. I have received a valuable education here. I have many friends here. My social life is made up of DUers. I love these people. But it is becoming harder and harder to ignore the keyboard commandos who seem to come here to bash Cindy and those of us who consider her a friend and a s/hero to a movement that is the most important one in our lifetimes, while they do NOTHING to end the damn war. Merely opposing it is not enough.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Psyop Samurai]

21. Yes, it was lacking nuance...

no, it was not hard to glean her meaning.

yes, her tactic is questionable, open to honest debate.

no, she is not crazy, nor does she remotely appear that way.

yes, some people are deliberately obtuse, while accusing Cindy of same.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

24. The US is a warring country

She would have done far better if she'd decided to confront that mentality in this country, which has traditionally existed in the Dem Party as well. We did create problems with Japan which led to their attack. We did create problems with Iraq. Hell, Reagan's hachacha little deal with Iran to win the Presidency has led us right to where we are today. So she makes perfectly valid points on our warring history. America "the good" is by and large a myth.

I just don't know that this was the best time to try to get the country to look in the mirror, or whether Cindy Sheehan is the person to do it at any point in time.

[Mythsaje]

25. It's a valid point...

but certainly not expressed with any particular grace.

Most people don't look so well into the mirror if they've got their faces slammed up against it.

[Codeine]

26. Most countries are warring countries.

We're a warring species, for that matter. And for the record, Japan created it's own problems with it's invasions in Asia.

[Mythsaje]

28. While this argument can certainly be made re: Japan

it could have probably been handled better from our side.

[Codeine]

31. Maybe.

War with Japan was a geopolitical inevitability, however.

[Mythsaje]

35. Most likely...

They were a very efficient war-like culture living on a very small space with a powerful need to expand.

What's interesting is how quickly they were able to convert their efficiency away from war and into other areas of expression. I'm not quite sure any other culture on Earth would've been able to pull THAT trick off.

[Breeze54]

36. Yeah..they bombed us and we crushed them.

Simple. Payback is a motherfucker.

[Mythsaje]

37. They bombed a military installation

and we ended the war by killing millions of civilians. That's a little past payback in my book.

Not that the leadership didn't deserve a good drubbing.

[Codeine]

39. You'll get no argument from me on that one. nt

[sandnsea]

42. But we pretend we aren't

and turn around and denigrate other countries for doing the exact same things we do. Japan made the same mistake Iraq did, not understanding that there's only 3 countries allowed to control external countries and their resources - and Japan isn't one of them. It's foolish to pretend we were innocent bystanders in all these wars. It's just not true and we're paying dearly for our self-delusion.

[hfojvt]

41. we will always be excremental to each other

as long as we practice 'scorched earth' thinking/debating where 'anybody who disagrees with me, is not only wrong, but a heretic/traitor/troll.' Their argument does not need to be disproven as much as they need to be attacked and denounced. The fire hazard is high and any lit match will do.

[Annces]

46. A side note

My grandmother signed consent for my father to enter the war when he was 17 and I don't think my father ever forgave her for that. Mothers can stop wars or can have greater influence.