Democrats and Cindy Sheehan

[pberq]

The bankrupcy of the Democratic party as it stands is now clear. Hopefully we now have a chance to change this in time for the 2006 elections.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jfrank.php?articleid=7059

<snip>
Cindy Sheehan is exactly what we needed. Following the 2004 elections, the antiwar movement was left in shambles, unable to recover from the malfunctions of the Democratic Party. MoveOn.org had capitulated its antiwar position by supporting John pro-war Kerry. United for Peace and Justice did not organize a single rally against the Iraq occupation. Indeed, the "Anybody but Bush" epidemic had crushed whatever movement there was to begin with. . .

<snip>
As this newly invigorated opposition to the Iraq war comes to a head with media-savvy Sheehan at the helm, one would assume the Democratic Party would find its voice. What do they have to lose? Certainly not elections. And certainly not their own popularity. They have none. Even with Bush down in the polls, the Democrats are not able to capitalize. They have not added an ounce to the antiwar campaign other than a few laughable gestures concerning the Downing Street memos. Other than that, they have been completely silent. Pathetic, in fact. Save Senator Russ Feingold, who is now calling for a mediocre withdrawal plan. But even Russ' half-assed call to withdrawal troops by December 2006 is being challenged within the Democratic establishment by the liberal warmongers.

Antiwar Howard Dean, the restless chair of the DNC, says it is the responsibility of the Bush administration to come up with an exit strategy, not the Democrats. Talk about the inability to offer an alternative. What makes Dean believe Bush could ever provide any reasonable … anything? Let alone an exit policy? Dean's tangled jargon is just another case of the Democrats' inability to be a legitimate opposition party.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, two prominent Democrats in the race for the White House in 2008, aren't having any of Feingold either. Stay the course, they say. Whatever the hell that means. Stay the course of what? Have they forgotten that there is no goal? No plan? No course? What we do know, however, is that thousands more troops and civilians are sure to die as the U.S. continues to occupy Iraq.

Fortunately, the grassroots of the Democratic Party do not agree with Kerry and Clinton. They want the troops out of Iraq. Many claim that this rift between the party grassroots and the D.C. Democrats is a fundamental identity crisis. They see the party as having no legitimate direction. No heart. No soul. They are right.

[IrateCitizen]

1. I take issue with the author's comments regarding UFPJ...

It is true that UFPJ did not organize a large antiwar rally in the months leading up to the election. But that does NOT mean that they were not active during that time, nor does it mean that they were capitulating their antiwar stance to the Kerry campaign's "stay to win" rhetoric, as did MoveOn.org.

Emphasis was placed on local organizing and events by UFPJ over this time period. It's all well and good to have 500,000 people come to NYC or SF for an antiwar rally, but a way to circumvent the media's lack of exposure is to organize local events that force people to realize that they have neighbors and friends against the war and occupation. It's easy to go and be part of an anonymous crowd in a big city -- it's another thing altogether to stand up in front of your neighbors and declare your opposition.

Cindy Sheehan's protest is simply an example of a small, independent action that has blossomed into a nationwide phenomenon by the fact of her Gold Star Mother status. Her action has little in common with a mass rally organized by UFPJ or ANSWER or whoever else -- and instead is much more representative of small groups of individuals willing to stand up and loudly voice their dissent, which is much more powerful IMHO.

[peacetalksforall]

2. Stay the course means stay with death, the way I read it. How many

Iraqis a month? What additional miserable elements must they suffer in their everyday lives? How many more immune systems and moral and spiritual lives need to be messed up? How many more limbs and organs must be ripped out? How many more fatherless kids? How many more lost homes and futures?

Do Dems want to continue to leave it all in the hands of these disgusting, delusional, inept regime partners to call the shots?

Just how rich can you get? Just how many secret anti-people toys can you make? Just how many more foreign leaders have to be bought off? Just how far can you go to fund right wing corporate and cultist support systems?.

[pberq]

4. Hopefully someone will step forward

That will actually represent the views of the majority of Democrats.

[second edition]

3. Excuse me, I consider myself to be grassroots and I don't agree

with most of your post. We democrats are divided on this issue. Right now, I agree more with John Kerry's position than yours.By the way, he doesn't support the President in regards to this war. His concerns are directed at stabilizing the country and providing the Iraq's with what is necessary to maintain a free society. I'm anti- this war, but I don't agree with immediate withdraw. You don't splinter a party simply because you have differing opinions on how to proceed in ending the conflict. You deserve answers to your questions and concerns, but just because you think you are right doesn't make it so. How much inside knowledge do you have to refute the concerns of those fearful of what we will be left with and what is to come if we pull out of iraq immediately?
also, Feingold's comments are not so different than Kerry's.

[pberq]

5. How about the fact that the occupation is the cause of the insurgency?

The only way to "stabilize" Iraq is to end the U.S. occupation.

Kerry supports Empire and all it stands for.

He had plenty of information that Bush was lying before the Iraq invasion, but supported it anyway.

The bottom line is that this war is illegal, unjust, and immoral, and the sooner we get out of there, the better.

[emulatorloo]

6. Bush screwed the Iraqi people. Now you want Dems to screw them further

Basically we have a situation where there is no water, sewer, electricity. Where wackjobs are murdering barbers because they offer shaves to men. This is all because of GWB, and his stinking incompetence re rebuilding the infrastructure that he destroyed on his crazy whim. Something has to be done for the average iraqi who has had his/her life turned upside down by what GWB did. Leaving iraq to the murderous whackjobs isn't very responsible.

I don't know what the solution is but cutting Iraq loose isn't the way to do right by Iraq for the deplorable things that happened to them because of GWB's lovely war.

[G_j]

7. " the murderous whackjobs"

which ones are you talking about?
Bush, Rumsfeld?

[emulatorloo]

8. I'd be willing to include them. . .EOM

[pberq]

9. The idea that by keeping the U.S. military in Iraq we are somehow

helping the Iraqi people is laughable.

The presence of the U.S. military is the CAUSE of the problems in Iraq.

The sooner the cause of the problem is removed, the sooner the Iraqis have a chance to improve their situation.

Maybe there will need to be some international force, but the only thing worse than what is happening in Iraq now is "staying the course".