Sunday, August 07, 2005

Stop using Cindy Sheehan

If ever I needed a reminder of why I have problems with some in the Democratic Party how Cindy Sheehan is being used is it. I received an email from democrats.com urging me to help Cindy get answers and to sign a petition.

We would not be in Iraq right now had it not been for Democrats who voted with Republicans to allow it. Yes, of course, the never ending they were misled. That's total bs. They agreed that we are somehow a higher power than the UN. They have continued to fund this war and very few of them have done anything to try to demand action. Those few Democrats who have? They haven't supported. Publicly they make a huge deal about it but the reality is the majority of Democrats in Congress have done nothing. Not only did they agree to it, continue to fund it but they pretend they have no responsibility in it.

Every single Democrat that voted to allow Bush to send troops to Iraq is responsible for the death of Cindy Sheehan's son. They question Bush on everything, fight him on judicial candidates, yet now magically it wasn't their fault that they had "misinformation"?

Cindy deserves answers, and not just from President Bush but from Congress as well. Wake up Congress and take responsibility for your own actions, if you truly believe this is wrong then do something. You have the power to stop the government in it's tracks if you believe this is wrong. Else stop playing games with a mother who has lost her son. You want us to believe you really care about our children? Then act like it. President Bush could have never gone to war without your votes.

13 comments:

Faith said...

Absolutely. Misled, schmisled. 'Tis the responsibility of both. Not to get off topic but just as Howard Dean now raving about the Repubs and immigrants. Oh puhleeze, gimme a break ! A break in the bull you know what. One step, two step, side step. Congress taught me to line dance and then the shag. Tag, too. :) I do think the Repubs had the inside track in creating the fervor for Invasion Iraq as the American people went into a frenzy wanting someone to pay. The Democrats ? held out just long enough to see how the public was going to swing. As in popular or not. And that meant votes. This election ? I'm going to vote against every incumbent I possibly can. Period ! :)

Lisa Renee said...

I agree Faith, I would also suggest supporting good candidates that are not D's or R's but the only way we can take this country back is if they realize we actually will not send them back. We do have the power, we just need to use it.

:-)

Steve said...

Great post, and I wrote one like it this morning here:

http://distanceblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/48th-georgia-national-guard-in-iraq.html

I do agree with your premise about the families being used for political gain. One thing I do want to point out is that only about 1/2 of the Democrats voted for the war, whereas you can blame ALL of the Republicans. They were the ones who got us into this, but you are 100% correct that the pro-War Democrats share equal blame and now are wimpng out. They just didn't think we would get stuck over there like we are.

Its awful the way the kids in Iraq are being used as a political football by BOTH sides in this.

Cyberseaer said...

Though it sickens me to see a parent's anguish being used for political ass saving, I must ask this question; if Cindy's son was not killed in Iraq, would she be protesting? I have not heard of this woman until recently. I think I saw her on the news shows while channel suffering and I didn't listen. I know that most of the parents who have lost their children are against, but what was their stand beforehand?

I am not trying to diminish any of the parents' sorrow or feelings of emptiness. It is just that I am so used to the people of this country being filled with apathy and not taking a real stand until tragedy hits home, myself included.

Maybe Democrats were duped into the WMD issue, but that's Saddam's fault trying to bluff the US with not having something that he lead everyone to believe he did have. The Republicans were following party lines (what a shock) like sheep being lead into the slaughter. But the Democrats had the real power to stop Bush on his little war. But since they thought that they would be perceived as unpatriotic, shortly after of the tragic events of 9/11/01, that they let Bush do what he wants.

So the Republicans are 30% at fault because of the party line toting, but the Democrats are 70% to blame, since they had the numbers to block it and didn't. Just everyone admit they all fucked up and bring back the troops and let Iraq sort everything out. The main goal, to oust Saddam (because Daddy Bush couldn't to it, it's all an ego thing), has been achieved. Now let's get out.

But we can't do that, then all of Congress and Bush would have to admit they were wrong and lose lots of face. And we can't have that now, can we?

I hate to say this, but I will. Cindy Sheehan is being used because she made herself available to the press to have her say. I hope she thought this through, since she will need a tough skin for what comes next. So, whatever she says to the media is political fair game. It's disgusting and amoral, but true. I don't like it anymore than the next person, but politics just plain sucks.

Steve said...

So the Republicans are 30% at fault because of the party line toting, but the Democrats are 70% to blame, since they had the numbers to block it and didn't.

I don't follow you, since the GOP controls both houses of Congress. Can you explain that a little more? (Not being atogonistic, I really want to know)

I do defintely agree though (as i said) that both sides are at least partially to blame.

Cyberseaer said...

No problem Steve. I may have overstated that a bit. The Dermocrats could have put up more of a fight. Maybe the war would still have started, but the Democrats should have given some opposition, but they all acted like doormats and let Bush do what he wanted without any trouble. That is why I am putting most of the blame on the Democrats.

Just for the record, I can't stand politicians, no matter what side they are on. I'm not taking any sides here, just some observations with a little editorals.

Lisa Renee said...

old article

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

I went back to make sure I was being accurate.

:-)

The News Writer said...

Democrats.com, the Web site asking your support for Cindy Sheehan, is not the Democratic party ... it's actually a couple of consultants who got started during the 2000 convention and now call themselves "the aggressive progressives." I doubt either of them ever gave one second to the idea of supporting the war. From their Web site:

Democrats.com was launched at the 2000 Democratic convention by two veteran Democratic consultants, David Lytel and Bob Fertik.

Our vision was to create the leading news and community Web site for the progressive base of the Democratic Party, in order to lead the fight against the radical right and the Republican Party. We called ourselves the "Aggressive Progressives."

We quickly fulfilled our vision after the polls closed on Election Day 2000 and reports streamed in from Florida about the infamous "butterfly ballot" and the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Democratic voters. Long before the word "blogging" was invented, we posted real-time news from Florida and around the country about the grassroots effort to "count every vote." When the U.S. Supreme Court threw out 175,000 Florida ballots that had never been counted, we worked with the Congressional Black Caucus to write the brief they used to challenge Florida's electors on January 6, 2001 - a scene that was made famous at the start of Fahrenheit 9-11. We also launched the first impeachment campaign against George W. Bush for stealing the Presidency.

From 2000 to 2004, Democrats.com published the first and only daily news service by and for Democratic activists. Each newsletter contained roughly 20 links to the most important stories published that day, both in the mainstream media and on progressive Web sites. We also organized online and offline campaigns on important issues like opposing the invasion of Iraq and impeaching George W. Bush for lying and war crimes. Our e-mail list of subscribers and supporters now totals 500,000.

On Election Day 2004, Democrats.com switched to a blog format. We now serve 400,000 pages per week (March 2005), which makes us one of the 10 largest Web sites for Democrats.


That said, what "some" Democrats have done in the way of hypocrisy is revolting.

Steve said...

C.,

Actually, after I posted the question, I figured out what you meant. You were saying the War Dems were more culpable then the GOP because they were more disingenuous. I agree with you for the most part.

I'll also retract the 100% statement I made earlier thanks to Lisa pointing out that Chafee voted against the war. Thanks, Lisa.

Lisa Renee said...

That's very true Newswriter and I appreciate your clarification as my original mention of them could have given the impression they were the DNC.

Politics at times seems to go hand in hand with hypocrisy from both of the main two parties.

Steve, I had forgotten about Chafee as well.

Anonymous said...

Looking for information and found it at this great site... »

Anonymous said...

Excellent, love it! film editing schools

Anonymous said...

Very nice site! » »