So why won't John Kerry meet with or even speak to Cindy Sheehan?

[Seabiscuit]

We all know she's there to talk to Shrub, and he's too much of a lying, cowardly weasel to take 20 minutes out of his lazy five-week vacation, but I read this today and found it disturbing:

A journalist for The Memphis Flyer who spent several days at Camp Casey this week just wrote of Cindy:

"She tells me that no congressional Democrats who voted for the war have contacted her but that several who did not vote for it had called to offer sympathy."

See: http://www.memphisflyer.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A9981

WTF is wrong with congressional Democrats like John Kerry (who voted for the IWR)??? Why are *they* hiding from Cindy???

[bemildred]

1. You won't see any of the War Democrats down in Crawford. nt

[Seabiscuit]

2. Do you think they actually might be hanging their heads in shame? n/t

[JuniperLea]

4. Not if they are smart.

If they are smart, they will keep their distance and not taint this pure American force of the people with their presence. 2008 is still pretty far off.

[DaveJ]

6. The only thing to be ashamed of is being conned. nt

[mondo joe]

23. That goes just so far. WE knew it was a con. They should have too.

[jonnyblitz]

38. I agree. they knew, it was all political calculation to them. nt

[Seabiscuit]

88. Far more shameful is trying to justify their vote after they knew for sure

it was the wrong thing to do and led to disaster.

[bemildred]

7. No, they have no shame. nt

[JuniperLea]

3. Hopefully they realize she doesn't need their "help"

And she is better off without it. She is doing quite well on her own without making this a political circus. The whole deal needs to stay in her hands and in the hands of her grassroots supporters. She should say "thanks but no thanks" to any such "support". The first Dem politico to take advantage of this beautiful, natural act deserves the smack-down for using this for personal gain!

[Seabiscuit]

5. Interesting thought, but why won't they even call her and thank her?

[JuniperLea]

12. Maybe they have...

And all concerned know it's best to keep it on the down low... Who knows. It's just the right thing to do, keeping their distance I mean.

[Seabiscuit]

91. According to Cindy, none of the ones who voted for the IWR have.

That's the main thing that bothers me.

[blm]

21. Kerry, Kennedy and Boxer all issued statements supporting her. The media

wants to goad Dems into making it a political showdown so they can politicize Cindy instead of accepting the sincerity of her cause.

Don't FALL for the media manipulation on this.

[Mr_Spock]

31. Yep, I agree. Let's not fall for the obvious trap here as stated by OP

This is NOT a political issue, it's a human issue with political implications. We need to see this correctly and not take the seemingly obvious bait...

[blm]

49. I'm surprised the OP won't even address this issue.

I think it's crucial to comprehend motives of the media.

[Merlot]

36. Agreed. The first Democrat who goes there will make

this a "Democratic" cause instead of the anti-war cause that it is for both dems and repubs.

[ultraist]

67. Kerry issued a statement supporting Cindy? Do you have a link?

[blm]

78. It was the same week Cindy started her vigil. Both he and Kennedy

gave statements to the Boston Herald. You can find it easily on search. I have a 4yo pulling at me to go to the park.

[CatWoman]

141. PREACH IT, SISTER!!!

I fail to see the logic behind him meeting with her.

That would be like throwing red meat to a pack of alligators.

The Press would spin, twist, turn -- everything they can do -- in order to make this appear to be a Dem attack on his majesty.

[Mr_Spock]

17. See, you are seeing this as I see it

They could only hurt her cause by making it seem like the latest "political cause" for these politician's to glom onto. No, they are neither wanted OR needed there. They could quietly voice their approval though.

[Snotcicles]

93. Are we running out of republicans to *_ck with? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

8. WHY?

Indeed




DO THE MATH

THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A MILITARY ORDER
http://www.bushflash.com/buddy.html

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. Yep no reason to believe LIOHP/MIHOP!

Nonewhatsoeveratall! :grr:

[MADem]

9. He needs to STAY AWAY

...along with MOST politicians. This is about the antiwar movement, not about Democrats or Republicans. It is about a Gold Star Mother wanting answers as to why her kid died in a stupid war for oil.

Remember, the TIPPING point in the Vietnam conflict came when the so called 'silent majority'--the GOP in the Heartland, and the Democrats for Nixon--decided that enough was e-fucking-nough, and turned their backs on Tricky and the war. It was not ALL Democrats, even though they did the heavy lifting, it was Democrats aided by disgusted Republicans who helped to end that mess.

But it started with the PEOPLE, not the politicos....

[goclark]

20. I agree, this is about the Moms

If the politicians get in it, it clouds the issue.

As much as I want to see Kerry and others march with them and stand with them - the PEOPLE need to speake this time.

The Democrats really have a gold mind in Cindy.

Conyers must have taught her well. Remember she was at the DSM hearings and was fabulous!

[Seabiscuit]

25. If you remember Vietnam, surely you remember Senator William Fullbright,

and Congressman Dornan, for instance - many in Congress openly opposed that war from early on, and the antiwar movement rallied around them. No one in Congress seemed overly concerned about political correctness or saving their careerist butts back then.

[MADem]

56. Of course--Father Drinan was a leading edge on the Hill, certainly

...as well. There were MANY, but they got no damn traction. They were initially dismissed and ridiculed just as the few politicians who dare to speak out get the same treatment today. It is only through the long lens of history can we really see how big the stones on those politicos were.

But, with the exception of Drinan, you did not see politicians as a matter of ROUTINE, marching, camping, sitting in, that kind of thing. They took to a podium, and maybe gave a speech on occasion, and then got the hell out. They did most of their griping either from the Hill or on the Sunday talk shows (back when MEET THE PRESS actually involved people who WORKED in journalism!). You did, though, see a lot of MORAL leadership from the likes of MLK, the Berrigan Brothers...and of course, the radicals who were into taking it to the streets.

I just do not think that identifying the antiwar movement with the DEMOCRATS--or ANY politicians--helps it--it further polarizes, which is what "Il Douche" (love that phrase, saw it in another thread) WANTS to do--DIVIDE AND CONQUER. He wants the Democrats to be on that side, so he can rally his folks to his side. We need to beat him at that game, and bring everyone into the big tent with the goal of letting our sons and daughters live by getting them out of that fucking hellhole of a shooting/bombing gallery.

This needs to be a movement of people, not politicians. The politicians are not leading, so they need to be LED--OF, By, and FOR the people!

[Seabiscuit]

86. Good points, but I must point out that Senator Fullbright stood up

publicly not only from the outset of the war, but continued, so long as he was in the Senate, to speak out against it. He never "got the hell out".

And thanks for correcting my spelling of Father Drinan's name (how did "Dornan"'s name slip into my post???)

I also agree that the antiwar movement does not have to identify with either party, as it was certainly nonpartisan during Vietnam. We protested both Johnson, a dem, and Nixon, a repuke.

OTOH, while I'm not the least surprised that no congressional Repukes have contacted Cindy, it disappoints me that the only congressional dems that have were those who voted against the IWR.

I'm still concerned about the lack of conscience on the part of Congressional dems, however, who can't even manage a private show of sympathy through a simple private phone call. It's not as if they had anything better to do on their vacations. And the media would never know about it beyond what Cindy says about phone calls in general, without naming names. The quote from the article I referenced gave me the impression that Cindy felt disappointed that none of the congressional dems who voted for the IWR had contacted her in any way at all.

[MADem]

96. My take remains that it is best that she not be viewed as a tool of the

left or the liberal Democrats. I don't follow every word that comes out of Cindy's mouth, but the statements that I have heard indicate that she, as a Gold Star mother, wants answers--that she speaks for herself, and those who feel the same way that she does. I do think it is best that she get her support from first of all, the grassroots--the ordinary citizens who care, along with the military families' organizations and Iraq Vets Against the War--and second, from the moral leaders who are not currently holding office.

Let the officeholders speak from the floor of the House and Senate and offer their support--they do not need to be pandering to cameras in Crawford. Part of the reason that you do not hear much from any Senator or Rep is because they, like Chimpy, are on holiday.

Recess is almost over, and surely they will have opportunity to say a few words when they resume their work in DC. By then, Chimp either will have caved, or Cindy will be parked in front of the WH...she will be hard to miss if that happens.

[Seabiscuit]

102. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm mainly concerned about the lack of phone

calls rendering private support to Cindy from dems who voted for the IWR. Surely, they could take 60 seconds out of their August recess vacation to say something to her in private.

Hopefully, this movement will eventually overwhelm Congress and more and more voices will be raised on the hill against this stinkin' war.

[blm]

104. Now WHY would anyone make it about the IWR when it wasn't the IWR that

started the war?

Bush went into Iraq DESPITE the guidelines of the IWR.

Blame the IWR and you let Bush off the hook for not implementing its guidelines honestly.

It was pure Rove spin that a vote for IWR gave Bush a blank check. It didn't, but this way the media doesn't have to question or examine HOW Bush ALONE failed to implement the guidelines properly and took this country into war on his LONE decision.

People forget that the IWR required Bush to make his determination after the weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts forced him to conclude that invasion was NECESSARY for national security.

Bush should be impeached BECAUSE of the IWR and his failure to administer it honestly.

[Seabiscuit]

118. Again, without the IWR Bush wouldn't have had the choice to make.

It ceded Congress's authority to declare war to the President. As such it placed full trust in one man they knew to be untrustworthy. So he betrayed the trust by not invading only "as a last resort"? Well, surprise, surprise.

There are well over a dozen reasons Bush should be impeached. I'm not absolutely convinced this is one of them. And lying to Congress about a phony threat is an unquestionably impeachable offense - but it wouldn't be all that easy to prove intent to deceive.

[blm]

120. That's not correct. I answer in another post that he was prepared to use

the original 1991 UN resolution, which would have put him on more solid legal ground than the IWR, but, he wanted the media battle with the Dems right before the 2002 election.

BTW...the Downing Street Memo PROVES there was intent to deceive and that is why Kerry sent a letter of inquiry for the Senate intel committee to investigate the DSM. A letter that only NINE other Senators signed.

[Seabiscuit]

126. I disagree. First of all, under international law, no nation has the

unilateral right to selectively enforce U.N. resolutions. Only the U.N. can do that. That's why Bush wanted to rush a war resolution through the U.N. security council in March, 2003 before the invasion, which prompted France to promise to veto any such resolution (France had enough information to know that Bush's claims about Iraqi WMD and Al-Queda connections were bogus, and meanwhile the U.N. inspectors were finding absolutely nothing in Iraq which would support Bush's wild claims). Which of course led to right-wing France bashing, "freedom fries", etc., ad nauseum. It's also why Kofi Annan declared after the invasion that the invasion was a violation of the U.N. Charter.

The second legal hurdle Bush had was the power to declare war, which is reserved under the U.S. Constitution to Congress alone. No President has the legal right to invade another country without either a declaration of war from Congress, a resolution approved by the U.N. security council, or, as in this case, a resolution like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution passed by Congress giving the President discretion to invade. Such resolutions should, IMHO, be declared unconstitutional because they effectively violate the constituion by eliminating Congress' unilateral power to declare war, and cede that power to the executive branch. And historically the two primary examples of such resolutions the ones I mentioned above, were used to justify otherwise illegal invasions of sovereign countries based on a pack of lies. The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened - a pure fabrication. And we all know about the faked intelligence behind the IWR.

All Bush's pre-war bluster about supposedly having the right to invade all by himself was just a B.S. smokescreen to ram the IWR through Congress.

While I agree that the DSM memos give some evidence that Bush lied to Congress about what our intelligence showed about Iraq prior to the invasion, it's another kettle of fish to prove the lies with the kind of specificity required for impeachment. The words in the DSM are general and don't address Bush's specific lies. They're a good start, but absent more damaging evidence linking "fixing the intelligence around the policy" (as some British guy wrote about his impression of the Bush administration in 2002) to specific false claims made by Bush, it may be insufficient in an impeachment proceeding. Certainly Bush's supporters in such a proceeding would make that and other arguments.

[blm]

128. As I recall, Blair preferred the auspice of the original 1991 UN res,

specifically because they were on stronger legal ground with it than with the IWR.

Bush was still planning to use that alternative if the UN decided against a new resolution.

[Seabiscuit]

129. I seem to recall the same thing - but again,

neither the U.S. nor Britain would have the right, under international law, to unilaterally enforce the 1991 U.N. resolution by invading Iraq. Only the U.N. had the legal right to enforce the 1991 resolution by vote of the security council. I seem to recall Blair suggesting that they would still have to present their case to the U.N. for any war based on the 1991 U.N. resolution.

And with either the IWR or the 1991 U.N. resolution both Blair and Bush knew they would have to go back to the U.N. and convince the security council that the U.N. should put the weapons inspectors back in Iraq as a first step to convincing the U.N. to enforce either with an invasion. They miscalculted on both fronts, because both scenarios were premised on the notion that Saddam would refuse to allow the weapons inspectors back in. If it had happened that way, they could have argued to the security council that Saddam's refusal was yet another violation and invasion was the only route available to enforce either resolution. Unfortunately for them, Saddam welcomed the weapons inspectors, and unfortunately for them, the weapons inspectors found nothing. From that point on to the invasion, everything Bush said publicly could only be described as his throwing a hissy fit.

I don't mean to be difficult. I think we share the same views and aspirations - and the same conviction that this disastrous war is illegal in numerous ways (I even forgot to mention that it also violates the U.S. Constitution because the Constitution requires the U.S. to honor international treaties and agreements, such as the U.N. Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, because the war is a violation of the Charter) and immoral, based on lies stemming from the determination of a fanatical neocon ideology. I just want to be very careful in how we all go about deconstructing the Bush nightmare, so we get it right.

[Seabiscuit]

133. Self delete

[blm]

107. And their efforts DID NOT turn the public around. Kerry and the VETS

and their CITIZEN supporters turned the war policy around.

The antiwar politicians were demonized roundly. Unfortunately, that's the way Republican administrations work and how they succeed.

[MADem]

112. Yeah, interestingly enough, George McGovern was mightily "Roved"

And he was THE antiwar politician!!!

Most people who did not support him looked at him as a wussy wonk. Even his supporters, many of them, were completely UNAWARE that he was a friken WW2 HERO.

But the voters in the presidential campaign of 1972 weren't told about what a tough warrior McGovern had been. Instead, the Nixon people passed out rumors that McGovern had showed himself to be a "sissy" in World War II, that he had avoided taking difficult missions and was scorned by his crew.

The McGovern campaign staff made no effort to correct this lie and bring out the fact that they had a courageous tiger as a candidate. He had won one DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross) and was nominated for another.

TV commentator and columnist Mark Shields was, back then, a member of the campaign staff of McGovern's runningmate, Sarge Shriver. He told me the other day that he had at that time made a suggestion to the McGovern staff that it let the public know its candidate was a "decorated" pilot, a hero who on a number of occasions had brought planes back that were heavily damaged by enemy fire.

"I told them," Shields said, "to get the message out, to put a member of one of those planes on TV as a witness to McGovern's courage. He'd say something like this: 'Let me tell you how it was. I was terrified. We were all shot up. I thought we would never get back. But McGovern brought us back.' "

"The point of such a message," said Shields, "was that you don't have to be a hawk to be courageous and patriotic."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1204/p11s2-cogs.html

[Dogmudgeon]

48. This is probably the most cogent argument I have heard

It's EXACTLY what needs to be said.

The GOP is politicizing it; let them and them alone play politics to their hearts' content. This is a human issue, not a popularity issue.

Thanks for that post -- it's spot-on!

--p!

[Arkana]

132. Exactly. First off, Cindy Sheehan isn't asking to meet John Kerry.

Second, if Kerry does this, it'll look more politically motivated. This needs to stay as an affair of the people.

[donco6]

10. Political Strategy.

It's the same reason none of the big names will meet with her. They can't control her. They have ways of controlling each other - "you support my bill, I'll praise you to the leadership, you'll get a committee seat". They have nothing to hold over Cindy, and know that if she makes a misstep, they'll be dragged down in flames.

It's fear and protectionism. None is confident enough in their own position to ally with her.

[marylanddem]

11. My sentiments exactly - a bunch of cowards

These so-called Democratic leaders, including Kerry, should be ashamed of themselves for not lending support to Cindy Sheehan.

[JuniperLea]

22. They should be congratulated for thinking for a change

It would ruin the whole deal if any of them got involved. Think about it.

[jobycom]

13. It would look like grandstanding, and would detract from her message

That may not be why they don't contact her, but that would be the result of contacting her. Some of them may be afraid of her, too. Since they voted for the IWR, they don't know how she would react to their calls. Also, some will be afraid of the stories about her more radical message, and be afraid they'd get tarred with that reputation, too.

John Kerry travelling to Crawford would be a bad idea for everyone involved. It would make Sheehan look too partisan, it would make Kerry look like an ambulance chasing grandstander, and it would completely obliterate Sheehan's message. It would all be about Democrats versus Republicans, then.

Kerry has a forum for his views, if he needs it. Not that the media will report anything he says--they haven't so far.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Probably wrong, as always.

[JuniperLea]

28. You are wrong! Because you are right!

You are absolutely right! This isn't about politics and it shouldn't ever be connected to politics. This is about making one man, a very powerful man, being held accountable for his actions. Period. This is not about Democrats and Republicans or presidential races. This is about people being killed for nothing. That's it. Any political alliances would only spoil the whole deal.

[Merlot]

47. You're not wrong, I think you're right on the money.

[PittLib]

53. I agree. Quiet support is best.

It would appear too partisan and distract from the message. I believe that there is much regret in certain circles. Democrats do not need to claim the anti-war movement ... people who are against the war will gravitate toward them on their own. More of a nudge instead of a shove. This movement needs to take its own course, and Democrats will certainly benefit in the long run.

[Midlodemocrat]

66. I completely agree. Her grief is far more powerful

than anything any of the Dems could say.

I feel, personally, that they are completely behind her in this quest, but I think it is ill advised for some of the more high profile dems to go to Crawford. The right will scream that she is being used as a poltical pawn.

85. its better if it is sheehan leading

I agree it is better for Kerry to stay out of the spotlight. The administration is good at shooting down Kerry and other big name people, but they look like true bullies when they attack a citizen whose son died in Iraq.

[ScreamingMeemie]

14. DLC.

She's the wrong face of the party. :hi:

[blm]

15. Politicians should offer support statements but leave protest to citizens

and the veterans and the military families.

The media WANTS to make it into a political issue so it appears that Cindy is being motivated by a political agenda and not the sincerity of her cause.

[NMDemDist2]

edit, but still

I think the politicos staying away strengthens Cindy's message not detracts from it.

JMHO :shrug:

[Seabiscuit]

35. Kerry's not a "congressional Democrat"???

He's a Senator from Massachusetts who serves in the Congress, doesn't he? The question isn't limited to the Senate, but includes the House of Represenatives as well (the two houses of Congress) - which is why the reference to "congressional Democrats".

[chaumont58]

37. Not to be nitpicking

I think the term 'congressional' can be meant to refer to both houses. That way congresssional could refer to all elected members of the US Congress.

[Seabiscuit]

90. That's a valid point. I'm still conflicted about it, though.

[tucoramirez2005]

16. Because he wasn't going to end the war.

Howard Dean was.

[blm]

27. Dean and Kerry have been on the same page re dealing with Bush's mess.

Try a little research into their post-invasion plans to end George's mess.

[tucoramirez2005]

127. The question was put to Kerry during the campaign

he was less resolute than Dean about ending the war.

The 2004 campaign didn't include much talk about the war between the 2 major candidates, because they were on the same page.

[sandnsea]

134. He planned to begin withdrawal THIS SUMMER

That's what the plan that he presented LAST YEAR called for.

And you think last year's Presidential campaign didn't include talk about the war???? What rock were you under? We lost because of the damned war.

[blm]

142. If you think that then you have a perception problem, no doubt thanks to

corporate media spin.

[dutchdemocrat]

18. Because

Kerry's a Skull and Bones warmonger with a history of history of slandering democratically elected world leaders such as Chavez in Venezuela for no good reason (well, other than to cater to his overlords).

[mondo joe]

19. Good. She doesn't need to be tarnished by association with him.

And he has nothing to add.

[blm]

40. Sheehan is doing what Kerry did. Leading CITIZENS, veterans and military

families against the war.

No politician ended Vietnam. It took Kerry's efforts leading the public to stop the Vietnam policy, just as it will take Cindy's.

Lawmakers become certain targets to demonize the entire effort, where citizens and military voices CAN cut through the media spin.

[Karmadillo]

24. It would not necessarily be a plus for war Dems to meet with Cindy and

then go on MTP and other corporate propaganda shows and cry, "Stay the course! More troops! The Democratic Party is the better war party!" Better just to keep a low profile and hope the antiwar movement fails to get any traction.

[still_one]

39. how come Paul Hackett has changed his view?

he indicates we have toppled a dictator, gave them a constitution, now we should bring the troops home

[Karmadillo]

61. He's crazy.

He'll never get to be a "leading Democrat" if he keeps spouting common sense.

[still_one]

87. LOL, he will at least get my vote

[LaurenG]

26. My guess is it's a political maneuver

on the part of the dems. They don't want to lose "credibility" in the eyes of their constituents.

If they would just grab hold of the downing street memo, several statements from the CIA and a few other documents we could bring down the house of *bush.

sharpton is going there. I saw him on faux news being interviewed by a guy I don't like. (well I don't like any of them but I can't think of his name). Anyway he did NOT let the faux news guy demean or otherwise put words in Cindy's mouth or his. It was good.

[Seabiscuit]

43. Isn't this why Dems lost so much in 2000, 2002 and 2004?

This was the same rationale for voting in favor of the IWR against their better judgment.

[LaurenG]

69. yes yes yes

I wish they would just dare to do what their conscience tells them rather than what will keep them in office. I think they will again pay a heavy price if they don't just start telling it like it is. More and more Americans are waking up to this bs and the dems will be looked on the same as the republican butt kissers. Maybe that's what they want but my guess is they will be sorry.

[Seabiscuit]

92. Their date with destiny will come. If not in 2006 or 2008, some day and

hopefully when they least expect it.

[still_one]

29. This is why they will NEVER get my vote if they run for president

I will NOT vote for anyone who gave * the authority to go into Iraq, and then uses the excuse, "I was misled"

B.S.

Feingold wasn't misled. He voted against going into Iraq. He voted for giving the soldiers 87 billion funding after the soldiers were already sent, and he voted AGAINST the patriot act

I am tired of democrats who do NOT stand up for democratic principles because they are too afraid

Paul Hackett has re-evaluated the situation, and has now said it is time to bring the soldiers home NOW. The Clintons, Bidens, etc. are of the belief that staying the course is the way to go

The 2004 election actually opened my eyes. It is time that the people take back the democratic party from the DLC and PNACers

[Katidid]

74. I am sick and tired of politicians

who won't stand in their own truth, take responsibility for their mis-actions, speak and act without the spin.

Even though I am not from Ohio, I liked the way Paul Hackett spoke his truth and didn't seem to afraid to upset people with his opinions. I am sorry he lost.

I like Barbara Boxer, but my sister says she will never have the country's support because she is from California and too strident ... I don't know what the hell that has to do with anything.

I just want some real honesty.

[still_one]

89. I agree with you

I respect people who take responsibility for their actions, admit when they are wrong, and take action to correct it

There were enough Democrats who knew we should NOT go into Iraq, and they were NOT misled:

Boxer, Feingold, Kucinich, Dean, Byrd, and quite a few others

[DaveJ]

30. They aren't saints, okay?

The fact that Kerry and the other Dems won't meet with her may be indicative of their imperfection but they weren't the ones who started this mess. They were lied to to solicit their votes. So no they aren't saints but the blood remains on Shrub's hands.

[Orsino]

32. Because they rolled over for * and let him have his war.

They could have stood against it, not didn't. I would be ashamed, too.

There's no possible way to justify their failure. They have nothing to gain, and quite a bit to lose, if Cindy gets to confront them.

[earthside]

33. Get Over Kerry!

I'm a Green ... but I put in hours and hours and hours of volunteer time to try and get John Kerry elected. Bush had to go and I was willing to work hard to get Kerry in ... even if I had doubts.

I also think Kerry won Ohio.

But Kerry should have won by such a big margin that he didn't need Ohio.

He blew it because he couldn't speak up about the lies and the immorality of the Iraq War.

He was scared to death that the radical Republicans were going to question his patriotism --- WHICH THEY DID ANYWAY!

So, my message is 'get over Kerry' ... he will not renounce his vote for the Iraq war. Nor will Clinton or Biden or Bayh or any of the other spineless 'inside the beltway' Democrats.

I'm glad Kerry won't go down to Crawford, I don't want any of his fear and hesitancy to rub-off on a REAL hero like Cindy Sheehan.

Support Russ Feingold and the Congressional Black Caucus, but give the timid Democrats the pink slip, they only make the war last longer.

[Seabiscuit]

51. Well said!

But I still think it's pretty pathetic that none of these congressional Dems who voted for the IWR even have the guts to make a private phone call to Cindy wishing her well.

[lateo]

83. *high fives*

Well said.

[greendog]

111. If Kerry was our president...

...Cindy would be camped out by his mansion in Ketchum, ID. Can you imagine the outrage from the left if the Dems had won and this crap in Iraq was still going on?

Could he come up with a decent answer to her question: "What noble cause"? The big Dems are avoiding her because they know she's right and they're wrong. She makes them look just as bad as the chimp.

[Missy M]

34. It would be a disastrous move on John Kerry's part or other..

Democratic politicians to try to be meeting with Cindy. The neocons and war mongers would be screaming bloody murder that this is a political ploy by the Democrats, they put Cindy up to it and it would be right up the alley of Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity etc. The movement started by Cindy is a wonderful thing and the results are paying off.

[jonnyblitz]

42. good points. nt

[Seabiscuit]

57. Good point, but a private phone call to Cindy wishing her well couldn't

cause that kind of harm.

[Missy M]

63. If he does have a private call with Cindy then it shouldn't be...

publicized, it should remain private. I believe any publicity regarding John Kerry or the Democrats in relation to Cindy will cause harm. She is doing a remarkable thing by herself and her non-politician supporters. Lets keep it that way.

[Seabiscuit]

75. Well, Cindy's statement to the reporter kept the phone calls private - she

didn't name names - she just mentioned she'd received calls from some congressional dems offering sympathy, but *none* from any that voted for the IWR.

That's what I find disturbing. If someone like Kerry called her privately, she wouldn't have had to qualify the above statement as she did, yet she could still keep the call confidential by not naming names. She could have just told the reporter she'd received calls from numerous congressmen and women offering their sympathy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. No - keep the politicians away

especially John Kerry.

This is about Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement. It's not about John Kerry or any other politician.

We need to stay on message here. Kerry would take the attention away from Cindy.

[rodeodance]

46. cindy has not asked to meet with kerry or anyone else.

[KG]

44. why would they want to do that? the dem leadership wholeheartedly supports

the quamire. they stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the chimp.

don't look for help from the dem party on important issues and you wont be disappointed.

[mtnsnake]

45. This guy is just as vague now as he was during his pathetic campaign.

When you find out why he won't address Cindy Sheehan, also find out why he didn't answer the SBVT liars, and why he let them get away with pushing him around during his pathetic campaign.

As far as him not showing any kind of support towards Cindy, I find that pretty alarming, considering he's supposed to be one of the foremost leaders of the Democratic Party. He could at least have the decency to offer her his sympathies, but nooooo, that might get him into political hot water if he did that.

[LSK]

50. here we go again

Kerry and the congressional democrats voted for use of force as a last resort. What they were voting for was to put lots of pressure on Saddam to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. Which worked 100%. Saddam at the end was VERY COOPERATIVE. Read this if you dont believe me:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Bush betrayed their trust by invading Iraq AND IT WAS NOT A LAST RESORT. So at this point in time, every congressional democrat should be screaming for an investigation into why Bush invaded and it was NOT A LAST RESORT.

[Seabiscuit]

62. You got that right.

How many congressional Dems have been publicly challenging Shrub about that betrayal and why he invaded Iraq? Not more than a handful.

[1932]

52. I'd be surprised if he didn't meet with her before this is all over.

She must remind JFK of a yound JFK, out there protesting the war, asking for answers from her government.

I suspect these two are on paths that will intersect when the time is right.

[H5N1]

55. John Kerry.....mmm...now where I have heard that name before?

[Seabiscuit]

58. Remember, folks, this thread isn't limited to meeting Cindy in Crawford

It is primarily focused on Cindy's statement to the reporter about *contact* and *phone calls*:

"She tells me that no congressional Democrats who voted for the war have contacted her but that several who did not vote for it had called to offer sympathy."

[porphyrian]

59. DLC membership.

They support the war.

[GoBlue]

60. How do you ask the last man to die for a lie?

Remain silent and don't tell him.

[Pepperbelly]

64. Why do you want to turn it into a Teri Schivo circus?

That is what would happen if big shot pols show up. Fuck that.

[Seabiscuit]

65. I don't. I'm more concerned about why they haven't even called her.

[ultraist]

76. I'm concerned as to why they haven't issued supportive public statements

It's important that Democrats know the Dem leaders support grassroots efforts. Moreover, we need to know that they support our RIGHT to speak out! WHERE ARE THEY? Aside from Dean, Conyers, and Waters, I'm not aware of any other elected Dems making public statements, although I believe Kucinich may have.

[MADem]

114. The place to do that is from the FLOOR

of the House or Senate. That way, it is IN the Congressional Record, it is recorded on CSPAN, and if the words are fiery enough, it is played on the nightly news and talking head shows.

No point in coming out of your summer house with a tan and a pair of shorts on and talking into a camera without full warpaint (and if you wear the warpaint, you look like an ass).

Better to let it play out as CITIZEN AGAINST THE CHIMP, and they can weigh in ex post facto.

[Pepperbelly]

94. do you know that they haven't or ...

do you just know that such calls, if they occurred, have not been made public?

:shrug:

[Seabiscuit]

100. I'm simply relying on the reporter who quoted Cindy after meeting her.

See the quote from the article in my original post.

[graywarrior]

68. Well, like Dean said, the power is in our hands, not theirs.

It's Power of the People happening here. Much stronger than if Kerry stepped in and turned it into politics.

[Mass]

70. This would be a particularly stupid move coming from Kerry

The light would be immediately on him, and doubly because of his action against the Vietnam War. If you dont believe it, read the freepers' article and you see that his name is attached to Sheehan's name in half of their articles.

So now, it depends what you are looking for:

- a grassroot movement,

or

- a movement taken over by pols.

I still think the first one is better.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

71. Though I do sympathize and *support* your statement, after reading

some of the other posts the more the politicians stay out of this, the better. I've gotten so disillusioned ......

[Seabiscuit]

73. I agree it shouldn't turn into a media circus. But why no private phone

calls offering "sympathy", as Cindy mentioned to the reporter?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

77. That's a good question. Also ......

the Demos have to start to fight regardless of what the right-wing says!! That will only be the beginning of the fight.

[Seabiscuit]

81. The movement has only really begun to take off. These Congressional

Democrats who won't speak up for principal (or at the very least privately offer Cindy sympathy in a phone call) remind me of the old Bob Dylan song: "The Times They Are A-Changin'"

"Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'"

[ultraist]

72. Conyers and Maxine Waters publicly support Cindy

Conyers has a "Help Cindy" list of action items up on his website and Maxine Waters visted Camp Casey.

Elizabeth Edwards sent out an email, paid for by OneAmericaCommittee, calling for support for Cindy and has a letter for people to sign up at the OAC site.

Dean made supportive comments about Cindy during an interview.

Have any other Dems shown public support?

[Seabiscuit]

79. Indeed. These people didn't worry first about their political futures.

But I'm more concerned about the lack of private support. A private phone call doesn't have to be publicised and the caller need not be identified by name, ever.

[Mass]

80. Kennedy and Kerry have called on Bush to receive her. So has Dean.

This was two weeks ago.

And I forget Boxer.

[Seabiscuit]

84. Well, that's good news indeed. I didn't know that:

I knew about Dean, but didn't know Kerry and Kennedy had made the same public statement.

[blm]

109. Shouldn't you have CHECKED before you targetted Kerry specifically?

He made the statement back in the first week of the vigil and there have been a few threads about it since then.

[Seabiscuit]

110. Well, the thread isn't about that. It's about Cindy's quote to a reporter

about the fact that not one congressional democrat who voted for the IWR has called her or contacted her in any way. I merely mentioned Kerry because he's the most prominent dem on the hill right now, having been our candidate for President in 2004.

OTOH, perhaps I "targeted" Kerry unconsciously - his name just popped into my head when I read that quote from the article - and perhaps I unconsciously figured that with so many battles being fought about Kerry on DU during the past two years, his name would at least draw attention to the quote from the article.

[blm]

113. And it isn't about the IWR. IWR didn't take us to war - Bush did when he

failed to IMPLEMENT the guidelines of the IWR honestly.

Bush made the determination to go to war on his OWN. The IWR required him to make that decision AFTER diplomatice efforts and AFTER weapons inspections showed that war was unavoidable.

Bush said in a written document to Congress that HE determined war was unavoidable.

Bush should be impeached BECAUSE of the IWR, but, too many are so dense that they allowed the media to define IWR as full support for Bush's actions.

[Seabiscuit]

117. Bush wouldn't have had that choice to make if Congress hadn't ceded

its constitutional power to declare war to Shrub by passing the IWR. That was the very essence of what was wrong with the IWR. I will never forget Senator Byrd waving his copy of the constitution on the Senate floor and giving the Senators hell about this for hours during the debates and before the vote.

I for one do not fall for the media crap that voting for the IWR means "full support for Bush's actions". That's Karl Rove speaking through the media again.

[blm]

119. That's incorrect. Bush was PREPARED to go in based on original 1991 UN res

and he would have had greater legal standing on the war if he had. He just wanted the political battle with the Dems at that point with a media spinning for the White House at every turn.

The good thing about the IWR, though, was that it put weapons inspectors into Iraq so the historic record shows that war WAS avoidable and unnecessary.

Like I said, the IWR should be used to IMPEACH Bush.

[stepnw1f]

131. Exactly...

This is what I pointed out to another Republican.

[Seabiscuit]

135. See my post #129 above. We seem to be having the same discussion

in different parts of this thread. I happen to agree with what you're saying here, though, with the caveats I included in post #129 above.

[DemonFighterLives]

82. I don't think that any of the big dems should go to Camp Casey

But they should be raising holy hell about everything else. It is time to put the lid on dubbys pandoras box. He is down, but not out and our dems are sitting on their hands.

[Rainscents]

95. You know what... You need to get over Kerry and move on!

This is NOT about Kerry... This is about Cindy!!!

[Seabiscuit]

98. I only mentioned Kerry because he's the most prominent congressional

dem who voted for the IWR.

I'm not hung up about him - I supported him despite his lukewarm and exceedingly disappointing campaign. I'm more concerned about congress as a whole.

[ultraist]

103. Kerry is still holding back on this issue.

As are most major Dems. With nearly 70% of the population feeling as though Bush is NOT handling Iraq well, you'd think they'd get off the fence! But very few are. Feingold is one of the few who is stepping here:

snips
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/23/when_should_troops_return/

When should troops return?
By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | August 23, 2005

WASHINGTON
SENATOR RUSS Feingold has shattered a taboo as far as the war in Iraq is concerned. That taboo involves talk about ''completing the mission." No more. Says Feingold, ''It's time for senators and members of Congress, especially those from my party, to be less timid while this administration neglects urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq

This is the kind of discussion that Bush has avoided. But it is now going on all around him -- among some of our allies, within the military, and at the catalytic encampment of critics near his Texas ranch that has hit a nerve with a frustrated public.

Feingold openly linked his suggestion to remarks made by the former head of Australia's military, Peter Cosgrove, who stepped down in June from a post that commanded nearly 1,400 troops in Iraq. Cosgrove linked the presence of foreign troops to fuel for insurgent recruitment in and outside Iraq, and called for an accelerated training program so that all foreign troops could be out by the end of next year. That may not make Feingold's position mainstream, but it helps us understand that it is reasonable and achievable, and very much worth the kind of national discussion that to this moment Cindy Sheehan and her supporters have done more to promote than Bush.

[Seabiscuit]

97. There is one Republican congressman who met with her:

From the same article:

"Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina, she says, is the only Republican who has met with her to offer an apology for his vote in favor of the war."

Congressman Jones has shown he has a set of cajones and a strong spine not one congressional Dem who voted for the war has yet shown when it comes to supporting Cindy's cause.

[ultraist]

99. Walter Jones also voted against CAFTA

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/28/house.cafta/

In the end, 25 Republicans defied their leadership, and their president, to oppose CAFTA, while two others didn't vote. Only 15 of the House's 202 Democrats broke ranks to support it.

One of those lawmakers, Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina, told his colleagues that 200,000 jobs in his state have been lost since in the decade since passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and "CAFTA is NAFTA's ugly cousin."

[Seabiscuit]

101. I need to learn more about this guy. I like what I see today. n/t

[ultraist]

106. More about Walter...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4473074

The North Carolina coast is Bush country. But when the Republican congressman from the area, Walter Jones, was picking up hardware at the local Lowe's last week he got an earful from constituents worried about the situation in Iraq and when the U.S. would start pulling out

[Seabiscuit]

105. Wow. This is the fastest growing thread I've ever started. It must have

touched some nerves. The article I quoted touched mine.

[Dr Fate]

108. Keep the camera hogs away from Cindy. I dont want Kerry there.

He can go on TV shows and talk about his proposed investigations into the DSM or the Nigerian documents if he wants to do somthing useful in that regard.

Kerry has said Bush should meet with her- so he agrees with us on this.

[Seabiscuit]

115. My first question has been answered, and I must agree...

Kerry hasn't *met* with Cindy in Crawford because he just shouldn't - for all the reasons stated by posters in this thread.

My second question about why he or other congressional dems who voted for the IWR haven't bothered to even call her privately on the phone as she's mentioned other congressional dems have done still remains unanswered, perhaps because there is no good answer.

[Seabiscuit]

116. With that post did I just kill this thread?

[ladjf]

121. I don't think Kerry can help us in any significant way. His time

has passed.

[Seabiscuit]

122. If I were Cindy, I'd at least be reassured if he called me and said thank

you.

[laureloak]

123. Maybe the movement should stay grassroots for a while.

BTW, the Senators voted to empower Bush, not to go to war.

[Seabiscuit]

124. Agreed on both points.

[Q]

125. Are you kidding?

You sound like Rice trying to defend the Bush administrations non action after receiving the briefing: BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE U.S.

The Senators voted for the Iraq WAR resolution.

They knew what they were voting for. They voted for aggressive war.

[laureloak]

136. Believe what you want to believe.

[stepnw1f]

130. A Freeper Type Asked Me The Same Question

He even used IWR in his question like you did. Interesting.

Oh....hiding? I believe she asked for **B*sh**, not Kerry or anyother Dem.

What Cindy is doing isn't political. You should call and ask him instead of US.

[Lilith Velkor]

137. Because he's not the fucking President.

[MiniMe]

138. Because it would divert attention from what Cindy is trying to do n/t

[deebo550]

139. I was so disappointed by him after the election.

And I still am disappointed that he is not calling more attention to Ms. Sheehan's plight. If more Democrats called attention to her cause, perhaps it would put more pressure on Bush to actually meet with this poor woman.

[zulchzulu]

140. What about Dean, Kennedy, Edwards, Kucinich, Bono, Neil Diamond....

They should be there too!

Gimme a friggin' break.

It's about Cindy and Chimpy. All these hangers on have made it out of hand and out of control.

Why THE FUCK is ANSWER there? They should leave pronto!

[Seabiscuit]

144. Kerry's name was only an attention-getter for my thread.

Because he's the most prominent Democrat in Congress who happened to vote in favor of the IWR. And since Cindy's quote references *no* congressional dems who voted for the IWR (she inaccurately states "voted for the war" - it wasn't necessarily a vote for the war, just to cede Congress's most important war power to Shrub) have contacted her in any way or called her on the phone, I thought it would be appropriate to focus on congressional dems by raising the question re: Kerry.

Since posting, I have come to agree with those who think the D.C. pols should stay out of public endorsements of Cindy's actions. Cindy should remain just Cindy. But a private phone call wouldn't hurt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

143. He's turned into a pro-war chickenhawk.

Along with the other collaborators.