Cindy Sheehan: I Don't Know What His Beef Is

[babylonsister]

Posted in its entirety with permission...


I Don't Know What His Beef Is

By Cindy Sheehan


"I'm not insulted. I don't hold it against the government. The guy wanted to get on TV and he did. I don't know what his beef is, but whatever it is, I'm sure someone will hear it."
George Bush to ABC News after Iraqi Journalist, Muntazar al-Zaidi threw two shoes at him

I have vacillated over the past 8 years on whether George Bush is the stupidest man in the world, or the evilest. I think that the above statement may prove that he is both. He seriously does not know what al-Zaidi's "beef" is? Does George really believe that his cause was "Noble" and that the Iraqis should be grateful to that "dog" for destroying their country and killing over a million people?

Since the US currently is being governed in the highest office of the land, if not the world (for now), by the stupidest/evilest man on the planet, what does that say about Americans? We elected him, not once, but twice! "But, Cindy" you may protest, "he stole both elections." Yes, that is true and well-documented, but what did you do after Bush stole the elections? Did you storm the White House demanding his resignation? Did you work for election reform? Did you even go to a protest to demonstrate your dissatisfaction? I shamefully did not the first time he (with Al Gore's help) stole an election in 2000, but you can bet I have protested my heart out since 2004. If we lived in almost every other country in the world, the protests against such theft of democracy and lies would have been militantly protested. Calderon stole the election in Mexico in 2006-- from Obrador and the supporters of Obrador shut down Mexico City for five months after! Many Mexicans today claim fealty to the "legitimate" government of Obrador. Here in America, we are lucky to shut down an intersection in DC for two hours.

It is also being reported that al-Zaidi detests "America and Americans." If true, he does not make the distinction between Americans and our government, and he should not. Our government is supposed to be a reflection of us. That means that we are a nation of greedy, self-serving, corrupt and callous people. For years, the majority of Americans have been theoretically against the occupation of Iraq and today it hovers up towards three-quarters of us. We see less than a fraction of a percent of the 225,000,000 US citizens who oppose the wars out protesting them and we saw a popular mandate for a President-elect who NEVER promised to end the occupation and, in fact, promises to increase the forgotten occupation of Afghanistan which will soon vault to the forefront.

I have been publicly advocating for the impeachment and imprisonment of George Bush since November 3rd, 2004, one day after Bush stole his last election. The arguments against impeachment or any kind of accountability have been that it would be: divisive, time consuming, political suicide for the Democrats, or too late now. The shoe incident and the fact that tens of millions of people, perhaps, "detest" America and Americans is enough reason for me to impeach that stupid, evil man and demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are not as stupid and evil as our government is.

Mr. al-Zaida's "beef" does not even need to be explained to most 5 years old children who understand that having a family member(s) killed, or your home destroyed makes most people angry/sad. Most people in the world who are not in the Robber classes also understand the frustration of a population that has absolutely no recourse against humiliation by the world's biggest bully.

We should take this incident as a clarion call for impeachment. George can be impeached after he leaves office. According to many Constitutional experts, he cannot be criminally prosecuted for any crime he has committed in office here in the States. I already know of plans for at least one international war tribunal, though.

Let's hold our government to our high morals.

Let's quit allowing it to drag us down to its filthy gutter.

[Canuckistanian]

1. K&R n/t

[Truth Teller]

2. Five recs in fifteen minutes and not a single comment before this?

Wow.

[uppityperson]

4. it happens, people read, rec, move on. Thank you for also kicking it.

sometimes there is nothing to add. It is good to remember to kick it up sometimes

[Truth Teller]

6. No beef, I am impressed! n/t

[Subdivisions]

13. When someone expresses the sentiment of so many people in

such a precise way, there's not much more to say. Kudos to a personal aquaintance whom I admire and respect. Thank you, Cindy.

[TahitiNut]

3. We're a nation of cowards and criminals, complicit in war crimes, unless and until ...

... the despicable bastards of the Cheney/Bush regime are brought to justice.
:grr:

[arcadian]

5. Wish I could rec this OP

and your post.

[roguevalley]

16. Cindy, a hero on the scale as that Iraqi man, taking a stand in the

midst of great fear and danger.

[ooglymoogly]

56. Hmmmmmm.

[Laelth]

12. Hear, hear.

Arrest, indict, try, and imprison him. The blood of countles thousands is on our hands thanks to Bush. We need to wash them and wash them well.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Gregorian]

23. This is true, as we have all been witnesses to their crimes.

Just waterboarding alone IS A CRIME.

[Mira]

30. And Cheney admitted allowing it and signing off on it. HE SHOULD BE UNDER ARREST right now.

[rhett o rick]

77. I only partially agree.

I agree we are a nation of cowards and criminals, complicit in war crimes. If we can bring the bush regime to justice, it will only partially wash our hands. It still won't bring back the dead that we stood by and watched die. We have a terrible problem with our system of government that would allow this to happen so easily.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. You should have heard me yelling at Cheney through the TV in his ABC News interview last night!

Both of them, plus a lot of other neo-cons, deserve to be held accountable.

[Octafish]

8. Killing a million innocent people isn't a beef.

It's a war crime.

[Laelth]

9. I vote evilest.

Cheney blinks when he lies. Believe it or not, Cheney may have a conscience. Shrub, otoh, can tell an outright lie without blinking or giving the slightest physical indication that he's lying. Yet he will wink at his staff before going on cameras to indicate that he can be trusted to lie and lie well. He communicates "I've got it all under control" with that wink, and the wink is necessary only because some fear he won't be able to pull off the lie.

No, I can not believe he's stupid. He comes from a very intelligent family (whose members are also evil).

Nope. Just plain evil, if you ask me.

-Laelth

[tclambert]

46. I vote Bush stupidest and Cheney evilest.

And when they get together? Bush says, "Hey, you got your evil in my stupid!" And Cheney says, "You got your stupid on my evil!"

[rhett o rick]

61. Where Cheney is evil personified, Bush is both stupid and evil. They are not mutually exclusive. nm

[Orsino]

10. Don't be disingenuous, Cindy.

It's far too late to be wondering whether *'s behavior originates in evil or stupidity. It's evil.

Of course George Bush knows what the "beef" is. He's merely pretending as hard as he can that he isn't the most hated man alive, and the most disastrous president ever. The beef doesn't have to be explained to a five-year-old, and it doesn't need to be explained to this president.

It's not stupidity. It's corruption, even if it's colored by the rosy tint of the bubble in which he lives.

[Yukari Yakumo]

21. Both, actually.

It's called callousness. The act of being evil and doing it stupidly so.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I could agree with most of the entire O.P. except with that asinine comment about "with Al Gore's

help."

Nobody fought harder against Bush than Al Gore, so if Cindy wants to feel shame for not protesting, more power to her but Al Gore contested that so called election longer than any contested election in Presidential History.

[uppityperson]

14. I agree with you there. eom

[Pastiche423]

18. I stopped right there

and could not continue. For years I have supported her, but no more.

[Hydra]

19. Truth

And all of us should have stood behind Gore when SCOTUS declared that they were appointing Bushco as our dictators and told them their input was unlawful.

Kerry is a different story.

[rucognizant]

27. He did.......

and NO SENATOR CAME Forward to support his case! ( neceassary by law) Remember how Boxer got all those orange roses for coming forward in 04

[Senator]

47. ....not -- he failed us in 2000.

He actively opposed challenging the unlawful Florida electors.

Whether or not the Senators were acting on his instruction/suggestion -- as was rumored -- is virtually irrelevant though. He failed when he capitulated to the edict of the Felonious Five.

---

[Uncle Joe]

60. And after the felonious five ruled, you would have done what differently? n/t

[Senator]

80. Continued to fight and lead, as promised.

Simply opening a mouth to say "this is wrong" would have been good for openers. And that alone may have changed the course of history.

But he also had explicit instructions in Justice Breyer's dissent on how this situation should have been remedied -- by Congress disallowing the patently unlawful Florida electors. The Felonious Five did not "decide" the Florida election. They simply truncated it -- thereby invalidating it.

Unlike President Clinton -- who simply said "No" to resignation in the face of impeachment and stood on principle, whatever the outcome -- Gore capitulated. Had he kept faith, who knows.

But what the outcome would have been is virtually irrelevant. Gore failed to stand up for the voters. He even failed to act on his own beliefs. His current (delusional) rationalization -- that he feared "violent revolution" -- is pathetically ironic. As he literally says he chose safety over liberty/democracy.

And as a result, we have neither.

---

[Uncle Joe]

86. What chance do you believe the Republican controlled Congress

would have ruled against Florida's electors?

Al Gore said he didn't agree with Supreme Court's decision, but he had the good sense to recognize the writing on the wall, it was a no win situation.

If Clinton believed in principle he would've either told the nation the truth instead of looking them in the camera lens and lying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or kept his mouth shut!

Either case would've been better for Al Gore, but Clinton didn't care because he didn't have to run for election again.

Just like Clinton didn't care when he told Ken Burns a few days before the convention, he had a delicate role to play because he was coming off impeachment, and then proceeded to take the longest walk down a hallway in convention history just so the cameras could gaze at his glory wasting precious prime time air time that could been spent promoting Al Gore; the same man that stood by him during impeachment for President. By his conversation with Ken Burns, he recognized his political liability to Al Gore, by his behavior at the convention, he didn't give a damn, it was always about Bill and that's why we got Bush.

[Senator]

88. What chance do you have when you abandon the fight?

Absolutely none.

Gore made us all subject to an edict (not a precedent-setting decision). And it has been a all-lose situation ever since.

Sorry, but that's the inconvenient truth.

--

[Uncle Joe]

89. Al didn't abandon the fight,

but when the referee says the fifteen rounds are over, continually punching your opponent serves no good purpose except to get you banned from the sport for good.

But even with Al Gore apparently retiring from the political arena he continued to fight for the people from the outside warning against the stupidity of the Iraq War and how that diverted precious resources from the war against the people that actually attacked us, while 70+% of the American People were succumbing to the brainwashing that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, giving scathing speeches criticizing Bush for his use of torture, and spreading the message of which the corporate media abandoned regarding the looming catastrophe of global warming as just a few examples.

The biggest difference being, he's fighting in the private arena now.

As a former Marine I can't think of any Commander in Chief, that I would trust over Al Gore to make the wise decisions regarding when to fight and when not to fight.

[Senator]

90. Of course he did.

He says so himself, to avoid "violent revolution." They was/is no "referee" or any other euphemistic sports metaphor that is relevant.

Nothing he's said or done since can undo that failure. And while he's done much good, he's also refused to call for impeachment for torture and war crimes. Again, he fails to actually engage.

Thank you for your service.

---

[Uncle Joe]

93. There were many referees in 2000, take your pick

A Republican controlled Supreme Court ruling for the Republicans.

A Republican controlled Congress supporting the Republicans.

A Republican controlled Florida legislature supporting the Republicans.

A Republican Governor of Florida and his Secretary of State supporting the Republicans.

A Republican controlled corporate media were without a doubt supporting the Republicans, ie "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" is just one among a multitude of media propagated slanders and libel waged against him by them for the better part two years prior to the selection of 2000. The corporate media controlled then as they still do today, although to a lesser degree, the American People's opinion. Keep in mind the same corporate media would go on to brain wash 70+% of the American People in to believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

The Internet was weaker than it is today.

There was no logical way for Al Gore win that election after the felonious five ruled. The only result would've been a continued diminishing of his credibility with the possibility of violent revolution. Al Gore believed that global warming climate change was and is the preeminent danger threatening humankind, if his credibility were totally damaged, or if we had descended in to another Civil War, what chance would he have of changing American Opinion regarding this looming catastrophic issue, what chance would we have of avoiding it?

Picking and choosing your fights in a wise and logical manner is not he same as quitting and it's not failure.

[Senator]

96. Those are election thieves, not referees.

Odd that you consider them the same thing. But no referee could force Gore's concession. He did that all by himself -- perhaps in accordance with bad advice. In any case, it was never "his election" to concede.

You see, it's not about "winning." An election is a survey, not a contest. And moral, patriotic principles are not fodder for "picking and choosing." Whether or not Gore could have swayed the relatively few Repubs necessary to reject the unlawful FL electors had he adhered to his principles, will never be known.

And while it might not be completely delusional to fear "violent revolution" (though I doubt anyone could non-hyperbolically describe the imagined mechanism), even that is a poor excuse for failure to stand on principle. For all we know, without the Civil War Barak Obama might be slaving in a field instead of moving into the White House.

But as to "changing American Opinion," that was in high gear even in spite of Gore's abdication of responsibility to lead. The number of Americans who did not consider the outcome "fair and square" rose from about 15% to 50% in the months following the theft. And while you may not have tapped into the power of the internet then, democrats.com -- responding to the groundswell -- was using it to http://dems.advomatic.com/node/3865">launch their "Fall Offensive" to try to re-institute democracy and justice.

Sadly, their first press conference was scheduled for 9/11/01 (cue dramatic music). Gore's leadership would surely have hastened and dramatically strengthened that effort. It's success might even have prevented the attacks and/or saved us from our long national neo-fascist nightmare.

---

[Uncle Joe]

97. Just because a referee is corrupt doesn't mean he/she didn't

occupy the institutional role of referee when it counted. It wasn't just the fact of them being Republicans, they were indeed the institutions or the controlling power of those institutions, the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Florida state legislature, the Florida Governor and his Secretary of State and the so called free press, aka; "fourth estate guardian watchdogs for democracy" that stood by with their thumbs up their asses, while the Republican's in Congress sent aides as intimidating thugs to riot and stop the counting of the votes, where was the reporting on that?

It was totally Al Gore's election to concede based on his best judgment as to all possible outcomes just as it's always been for any candidate throughout U.S. history.

You say it's not about winning in one paragraph and cite the history in the next which was a direct result of Abraham Lincoln winning that election.

Also while the case of the Civil War did bring about one overriding positive aspect that being freedom of the slaves, it also brought multitudes of negative results which to this day haven't totally healed. But more to the point violent revolution doesn't always bring about the desired result. The South was full of people believing they were standing on their principles, whether it was defending their homes and families from northern aggression, cotton trade with Europe without taxation, even the abhorrent belief in the right to own slaves was a principle. The North had it's own radicals that believed killing innocent people was okay so long as it was based on principle.

Furthermore when I was spoke of Al Gore changing American Opinion in my previous post, I wasn't speaking of the fairness of that election, I was speaking of the very real catastrophic threat posed to all humankind from global warming climate change, this is what he had to weigh. In short, I believe Al Gore believed he stood a better chance of saving humankind from itself by giving up his own ambition to the highest office in the land.

[Senator]

98. A corrupt referee is an oxymoron.

And there is no "institutional role" player that can force one to abandon principles. They might engineer a corrupt result, but they can't force someone to agree that it is not corrupt -- as Gore did with his re-concession.

Now, if you want to revise history to claim that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, or rationalize that 8 years of bushcheneyism was worth it because it allowed Gore the freedom to narrate a film years later, that's your business.

But neither changes the fact that he failed to stand on his own, and our national, principles at the time -- and continues to refuse to admit to that failure.

====

[Uncle Joe]

99. Webster's definition of "principles"

There are more definitions, but these seem to capture the essence of what I'm trying to communicate.

Principle; #3 A fundamental truth, law, doctrine or motivating force upon which others are based.
#4 A rule of conduct especially of right conduct; as the principle of racial equality.

#5 a. Such rules collectively; b. adherence to them integrity; uprightness, a person of
a person of principle.

I hate to pop your simplistic bubble in regards to motivating forces, but the Civil War was fought for many reasons.

In regards to Al Gore's principles, he stood by them, that's why he didn't contest or wage a futile battle anymore at the risk of losing a much bigger war.

As the character Spock said in Star Trek 3 "Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

If you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth" or read the book, you would know that for years there had been universal consensus by the scientific community that global warming climate change was a real and growing danger to humanity. However the corporate media continually reported this as if there was serious doubt, or ignored it all together, the same corporate media that slandered and libeled Al Gore for the better part of two years prior to the selection of 2000.

It took prodding from Al Gore just to get Clinton to sign Kyoto and even then he could only get commitment from one Senator to support it. I believe that was the late Senator Paul Wellstone; who would go on to die in one of those mysterious small plane crashes.

I also believe this inertia was because of two reasons, some of those political leaders didn't want to buck the corporate powers that be and it wasn't a major issue in the public sphere as the corporate media virtually ignored it on a serious level.

There is a narrow and closing window of opportunity to avert this global catastrophe, Al Gore knew that and he knew a protracted futile contesting of that election would only erode his credibility with the public, the corporate media would make sure of that, thereby eliminating any possibility to sway the American People on this issue. He also knew there was a very real possibility of escalating violence and this in itself would curtail desperately needed measures to avert this human wide catastrophe with the possibility of the extinction of the human race.

However I can't believe you even watched "An Inconvenient Truth" or you would know Al Gore hit the road for years after 2000 speaking to any audience that would listen to him and other than warning humanity of this looming catastrophe, that's what this movie was about.

And for whatever it's worth in December of 2000 Al Gore didn't submit to eight years of bushcheneyism, he submitted to four. Although I doubt Al took Bush too seriously at his word, Bush did claim in a 2000 debate, he would regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Of course Bush was just lying as usual, he would turn a 180 within a few weeks of coming to power. I believe the only reason he said that was to fuzz up the picture and to prop up Nader.

[Senator]

100. Webster's definition of "paralogism"

paralogism: \pə-ˈra-lə-ˌji-zəm\ noun: a fallacious argument

While it seems far-fetched that the climate issue was the reason for Gore's failure to confront the election thieves in 2000, he's certainly never given any indication of that. Do you suppose he feared violent revolution should the real pupose of his quitting be known?

As for the "many reasons" for the Civil War, I've never seen one proposed that isn't just a derivitive or euphemized version of the slave issue itself. And it's odd that http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm">they didn't bother to mention them at the time.

But at least Spock is right -- the needs of the voters outweighed the political needs of Al Gore -- even if he thought he was saving the planet. That's why it was never "his election" to concede.

---

[Uncle Joe]

101. I disagree with your premise on both counts, it wasn't far fetched,

along with championing opening up the Internet for the people, thereby magnifying their freedom of speech rights more than anything since the First Amendment was adopted in December of 1791, the global warming climate change issue was and is Al's primary passion and I have no doubt his policies and leadership as a President on this issue would've been much more aggressive than Bill Clinton's.

Also after the Supreme Court ruled, that was game, set, match and again as Spock would say continuing on that front would've been illogical.

If Al Gore only cared for his political needs as you contest, he would've continued fighting for power, the nation and the world's well being be damned or he would've entered the Presidential Race in 2004 or 2008. Al Gore didn't continue fighting the battle of 2000 because he knew the world desperately needed to move on, for humanity to survive. The clock was and is ticking on the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change with the window of opportunity closing to avert the worst aspects before certain tipping points are reached, Al Gore knew this better than any other political leader and thus he stood by his principles.

Regarding the needs of the many, it's not saving the planet, the planet will be just fine, humanity on the other hand is in deep peril, whether you wish to believe it or not. Humanities population numbers in the range of 6 + billion people, that includes every voter you mentioned + six billion more. Al Gore has stated many times, this issue is too large and too grave to be a political issue, that's why he decided to reach across the aisle to all political persuasions and been willing to speak to anyone that would listen, I hope one day you do.

[Senator]

102. There is no premise. I'm describing events.

You are the one suggesting Gore had "political needs" in mind -- like saving the world.

And Spock would not consider standing on principle to be illogical. He didn't know there would be a successful final outcome of his sacrificial act. He only knew he had a duty TO ACT.

Something Gore failed to do.

---

[Uncle Joe]

104. From your post #100 you did use it in as political needs of Al Gore.

I also disagree with the idea as being far fetched, it was totally logical.

"While it seems far-fetched that the climate issue was the reason for Gore's failure to confront the election thieves in 2000, he's certainly never given any indication of that. Do you suppose he feared violent revolution should the real purpose of his quitting be known?"

"But at least Spock is right -- the needs of the voters outweighed the political needs of Al Gore -- even if he thought he was saving the planet. That's why it was never "his election" to concede."

You keep missing the point it wasn't the political needs of Al Gore, it was his perception reinforced by the world's leading scientists of the looming catastrophic consequences that global warming climate change would have on the human species.

Now if you believe that believing the human species should survive shouldn't be a guiding principle, and that fighting for that survival even if it meant giving up your own personal political ambitions and even those of your followers, that's your prerogative, apparently it's not one of your principles, but the same can't be said for Al Gore and the billions of people that believe humanity should survive.

If Spock didn't know the the final outcome of his sacrificial act and he had a duty TO ACT, so did Al Gore and that's why he ACTED by conceding. However I believe both decisions were based on their best judgments and logical assessments of the final outcomes.

[Senator]

105. Only in response to your claim of what the needs were.

A claim that appears to be that Gore acted by conceding, then acted again by un-conceding, then acted yet again by re-conceding -- all with the same purposeful "judgments and logical assessments of the final outcomes."

I think it's pretty clear that this theory that Gore purposely thwarted the known will of the majority of American voters -- whose mantle he carried (then dropped) -- and knowingly allowed the horror years of bushcheney, is exclusively your own.

--

[Uncle Joe]

106. Everything Al Gore did was based on logic,

as to whether there was a realistic chance of winning or not, he acted in a logical manner on the information given to him at the time.

The horror years of Bush/Cheney are as going to Disney World compared to the horror years that will come when and if the worst effects of global warming climate change hit the fan. Katrina was a very minor dress rehearsal of the catastrophe humanity will face, but if this grim almost certain view of the future is too much for your sensibilities to deal with, I understand, some people can't handle it, but it's real and it's coming.

Peace to you, and Merry Christmas.

[Senator]

107. Sure, it's not illogical to act only based on "winning or not."

It's just unprincipled and a form of corruption. It's not capricious, arbitrary, or irrational. But he did have sufficient information to have opted to do the right, moral, patriotic thing instead. He just failed to keep fighting for us, as he promised he would.

Happy Holidays.

==

[Uncle Joe]

108. It wasn't based on winning

it was based on the best way to save humanity from itself, all six + billion including his supporters, and if it meant giving up his own personal ambitions so be it, if it meant not fighting an un winnable political battle for the sake of an ideal, so be it.

That's the total opposite of being unprincipled or corrupt, the highest moral thing is to save the human species from extinction, there is nothing higher, this is not denigrating the other moral ideals, but without survival of the human species there are no other ideals.

Al Gore continued the fight to save humanity after 2000, if you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth", you would know that, but apparently you haven't.

[Senator]

109. But that's what your post said.

And what Gore and everyone speaking for him was saying after the fact -- until he came up with this "violent revolution" rationalizaton. Perhaps that's not what you meant. But if not, then why keep harping on the "un winnable political battle."

Still, anything Gore did after January 6th, 2001 is irrelevant to what he failed to do before. That's the real "inconvenient truth."

--

[Uncle Joe]

110. The primary basis was saving humanity

plain and simple, that was and is the highest ideal.

Anybody this side of George Bush, knew violent revolution was a possibility from the outset, to stake humanity's existence on such a gamble would be immoral. But even if violent revolution didn't break out, the corporate media would've worked without a doubt to literally destroy Al Gore's credibility and as Al Gore was virtually the sole messenger, gambling humanity's existence on that possibility would have been immoral as well.

The point is, it wasn't winning for winning's sake, it was winning for the sake of saving humanity, when that possibility no longer existed, conceding for humanity's sake became the nest best option.

If you don't recognize that, nor Al Gore's contributions to your own empowerment, both before and after January 6th, 2001, how moral are you?

[Senator]

111. But that's 2 primary bases.

And who exactly was going to do all this "violent revolting?"

And how would not conceding have stopped his from narrating a film years later?

--

[acmavm]

112. Oh phooey. ALL of our reps, Senate & Congress, all of our party leaders,

and even we ourselves failed. What we witnessed was a coup legitimized by the Supreme Court (who had their own corrup agenda).

We ALL failed for not taking to the streets. At least the Brooks Brothers rioters made a show of protesting their 'violated' rights. We laid down and died.

And what made it worse? We coughed up John Kerry for the next go-round. What a deliberate plan for failure.

[Uncle Joe]

113. No, that's one primary basis; saving humanity

was the end goal, winning the political race was the means to get there.

Maybe you were sleeping when the corporate media slandered Al Gore for the better part of two years prior to the selection 2000? I believe it was precisely because he did champion opening up the Internet for the people thereby threatening the corporate media's one way monopoly of the distribution and dissemination of information; and the money, power and influence that goes with that, which earned their wrath against him.

That was the primary reason, the race was as close as it was, I have no doubt Al Gore could have won by a landslide without the relentless corporate media war waged against his credibility, while they simultaneously gave Bush a free pass, camouflaging his shortcomings, lies, mistakes and errors.

Regarding who would have done the violent revolting, who's to say, that doesn't mean the possibility didn't exist. Some people wanted peaceful protests in Chicago in 1968, others didn't. Of course that was just a small scale example. The question is, do you want to risk humanity's existence on such a gamble?

A more likely scenario, had Al Gore bucked the Supreme Court ruling on that election, the corporate media would've waged one way propaganda war against him while painting Bush as the victim. This would have further deteriorated Al Gore's credibility with the people making his job of raising awareness regarding the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change all the more difficult. The window of opportunity to avert the cataclysmic effects of global warming climate change is rapidly closing. Al Gore and the people of the planet didn't and don't have the luxury of time, if you still believe all Al Gore did was narrate a film, you haven't been paying attention, as I stated before, after 2000 he traveled the world over speaking to anyone that would listen in order to raise awareness.

At first when we began this discussion, I took you seriously to be an ideologue concerned about democracy and the corrupted manner in which Cheney/Bush came to power. However as you so cavalierly dismiss the threat against the human species from global warming climate change, and Al Gore's contributions in raising awareness of this threat, it's become apparent to me, this is just a cynical, petty, Machiavellian, political exercise to you.

With that, I will bid you adieu as my final post on this subject.

[Senator]

114. Only by conflating rationalizations does it become one of anything.

And the sad irony of this process is that a simple truth vanishes in your tapestry of lamention, excuse-making, and speculative legerdemain.

Gore didn't lose the election.

---

[texastoast]

37. I'm not sure that is her point

I believe that she might be referring to the fact that during the 2000 presidential race, it was hard to distinguish the 2000 Al Gore from shrubito. It was for me. Now if the Al Gore that came to life during the MoveOn speech in I think it was May of 2004 had been running in 2000, he would have won by a good margin, I believe. I think that might be what Cindy is referring to.

[stlsaxman]

45. if not her point then why even bring it up? (especially in Parenthesis)?

that was a snide, wicked, off-topic and ignorant jab at Al Gore that was totally uncalled for. it caused me (and others here) to stop reading the remainder of the piece. too bad as she may have had some legit points and i may even had recommended it. but, no.

yes, very unfortunate.

[texastoast]

81. Perhaps her sense of subtlety could use some improvement

But I think that Al was "guided" by the Democratic party to not be himself. I'm glad that time gives us a chance to mend our errant ways. I'm very thankful that he is a self-styled "recovering politician."

[stlsaxman]

84. No. Gore did EVERYTHING by the board regarding the 2000 election- remember-

as Vice-President and tie-breaking vote in The Senate, it would have been totally un-seemly for him to allow "one senator" to recognize the CBC regarding the vote. Had he done so it would have been claimed by the GOP, and rightfully so, a power-grab. It would have torn the congress and the nation in two. Gore was powerless. Sure- Bush/Cheney would have done it in a New York minute and probably gotten away with it.

Gore had no choice but to let it go all the way to the SCOTUS.

The proverbial rock/hard place.

It sucks big-time but there you have it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

95. Not the Democratic party, but the DLC

The DLC gave him the shittiest running mate in the history of Presidential politics, and then told him to be a stiff wooden puppet, and run on their weak assed platform.

Then, just as now, it's the goddamn DLC and their myth of "centrism" that is fucking us over.

[Senator]

44. It's not open to disagreement. Gore caved, thus approving the theft.

He refused to stand up for the majority of Americans in Florida -- and thus the nation -- who chose him over bushcheney.

Many people "fought harder" -- including the Congressional Black Caucus who Gore personally gavelled down in their attempt to disallow the unlawful Florida electors.

It is the reason there was no groundswell for him in 2004, as might have been expected (in DC).

He continues to refuse to admit his failure and mocks the gravity of it with the "little known third category" quip he uses when garnering speaking fees.

--

[defendandprotect]

59. Agree --

And ... Gore also gave us Lieberman which would have put a fanatically

religious Trojan Horse in White House --

Supposedly, he also stopped protests in "butterfly ballot" area --

Gore is Establishment, with life-long career support from oil industry --

Black Caucus were courageous and wise -- and ignored --

[Uncle Joe]

64. The Clinton Lewinsky Scandal and impeachment gave us Lieberman.

Al Gore's flexibility would have been greatly increased without those political anchors.

If Al Gore were "establishment" he would never have fought to empower the people's voice over and or through the oil industry's propaganda machine; that being the corporate media by championing opening up the Internet. This is precisely the reason, the corporate media waged a non-stop slander and libel campaign against him for the better part of two years prior to the selection of 2000, ie: Al Gore claimed to have "invented the Internet", being one of many. A job made all the easier because of Presidential Scandal and impeachment.

The Internet as a technological creation has done more for free speech than anything since the adoption of the First Amendment, and those were revolutionaries; who adopted the First Amendment, not establishment.

Furthermore I highly doubt Obama would be President Elect today without the overwhelming moral, informational and financial support he received from the Internet.

P.S. Even Cindy Sheehan's peace protests against Bush benefited from the magnification of the Internet.

[defendandprotect]

70. I don't see any link whatsoever between ...

Lewinsky scandal and Lieberman --

Lewinski scandal was pure GOP entrapment of Clinton --

and Clinton is another good example for putting candidate selection back into hands

of political parties where likely they know zipper history and other pertinent facts --

and where should be the motivation for seeing their party deals upheld.

Gore served many years with Lieberman and knew his fanaticism --

"Inconvenient Truth" - which was rather a late start -- fails to call for either

NATIONALIZING oil nor for ELECTRIC CARS. His campaign was not populist but DLC run

which was a huge mistake.

The Internet as a technological creation has done more for free speech than anything since the adoption of the First Amendment, and those were revolutionaries; who adopted the First Amendment, not establishment.

I don't know that the interent could have been foreseen as what it has become -- and still

even given the huge sums it raised for Obama, we don't OWN him because we have no leverage

over him -- but elites/corporations do.

As for the Founders, they set up the Elites with huge parcels of property handed out --

only propertied could vote -- and the Senate is the "brake" for Elites on USHR.

The government and most of our hierarchies have been run by Elites.


P.S. Even Cindy Sheehan's peace protests against Bush benefited from the magnification of the Internet

This is true but the economy is shutting her down --

Cindy has been a courageous anti-war leader and won't be forgotten.

[Uncle Joe]

73. If the Lewinsky Scandal was pure entrapment of Clinton

he willingly walked in to it after 1996, knowing he wouldn't have to run for President anymore and this after a near constant corporate media witch hunt waged against him, from before he even took office. But looking the people in the camera lens and lying to them was even worse, because it gave the Republicans the integrity issue. This made the corporate media sponsored war against Gore's credibility all the easier.

"Earth in the Balance" came long before "An Inconvenient Truth" and Al Gore called for changes in our energy, transportation and the way we relate to our home planet even then. However, Al Gore's first challenge was in waking the people to the threat and in that regard he faced a major corporate sponsored denial machine.

We don't own any President, but the Internet makes it increasingly likely the people's wishes will be respected and given their due over just the corporate/oligarchs. McCain ran his campaign the old way, Obama raked in mega bucks from many small donors using the Internet. I believe this model is the model of the future because the Internet supplies five dynamics, money, labor, organization, votes and message, but it will only work if the candidate has a message that resonates with the American People.

The corporate media CEOs knew what the Internet would eventually do to their one way megaphone power, if they didn't they were stupid.

I don't believe the Internet has even scratched the surface of it's capabilities yet, but I believe Al Gore; always a visionary knew what it could and would do, given the chance for it to grow.

The Founders were products of their time, culture and environment, that being the rural 18th century but they were also ahead of their time in many respects, calling for a government run by the rule of law, checks and balances, risking their lives against the world's superpower of the time and in that sense were revolutionaries. They set the foundation for what we have today.

[defendandprotect]

78. I see the "he lied" r-w rhetoric is ...

still with you ...

The public understood entrapment and didn't support impeachment --

but I agree with you on the "near constant corporate media witch hunt waged against him."

Not so different from what they did to Carter, either. Keep in mind those rescue

missions that went down in desert -- they didn't have the equipment attached to keep

sand out of the engines-! -- and the missions were headed by Ollie North ...

Carter once spoke on TV trying to tell us something he thought important and there

was no sound for 20 minutes. Carter's became the GOP-dubbed "failed presidency"

but it had little to do with him.

"Earth in the Balance" came long before "An Inconvenient Truth" and Al Gore called for changes in our energy, transportation and the way we relate to our home planet even then. However, Al Gore's first challenge was in waking the people to the threat and in that regard he faced a major corporate sponsored denial machine.

I agree, but when Gore had a chance to address public in his campaign, he barely mentioned

Global Warming and went DLC. It wasn't until later that he moved from DLC.

Again, corporations keep leverage on those they contribute to --

Small internet donors cannot do that -- no leverage.

We will see what happens --

Again, while the internet has supplied many benefits to candidates, it has given the

public no control over those we give "money, labor, organization, votes and message" to.


The Founders were products of their time, culture and environment, that being the rural 18th century but they were also ahead of their time in many respects, calling for a government run by the rule of law, checks and balances, risking their lives against the world's superpower of the time and in that sense were revolutionaries. They set the foundation for what we have today.

Patriarcy is still bias -- male superiority. More humans were cut out of Constitution

than included. PLUS I don't think we can blame "time, culture and environment" when we

consider conscience which we all have. RCC gave them license to "enslave or murder"

native Americans and Africans. "Manifest Desstiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature"

are easily recognized as license to enrich the few. While the Founders well knew they

had to separate out religion, they used its evil edicts and the Vatican's capitalism to

enslave in their own ways. The compromise with slave holding states led to Civil War from

which we have still not recovered.

[Uncle Joe]

79. Whether you label something as r-w rhetoric or l-w rhetoric, the ultimate political

question is, was it effective?

I believe as you, the public didn't support impeachment, however that lie was played continuously on television night and day, and in moderate to conservative states, to deny it's effectiveness would be illogical.

It created the framework for Bush to run on "to restore honor and integrity to the White House" I knew then as I know today Bush was a lying sack of fecal material, but the same can't be said for all people.

When Al Gore did mention the environment the corporate media downplayed or didn't cover it at all, they knew this issue was a non-starter for Bush.

Regarding Internet leverage, I disagree, there is a synergy being created, a higher mind if you will and those political leaders savvy enough to interpret it will find success while those still living in the top down version of rule will become as political dinosaurs.

The concept of male superiority is eroding, also as in most any incomplete house or structure the vast majority of it doesn't exist after only the foundation has been laid, but a good foundation sets the framework for solid construction.

If you study history no civilization has been virtuous to our way of thinking, most all prior to ours was far more barbaric and primitive.

[defendandprotect]

85. The question is, "Was it entrapment?" It won't hold up ...

Kenneth Starr organized and headed up Paula Jones' Defense Fund --

and prosecuted Clinton--??? Three right-wing US Senators arranged for a

Judge to be removed and another r-w Judge to replace him.

PLUS years of organized Arizona "mining" for dirt.


Also keep in mind that Bush LOST the election and Gore WON . . .including Florida . ..

no matter how you count it. The public gave an huge popular lead to Gore -- they got it.

Bush tactics included a GOP-fascist rally to stop the Miami-Dade vote recount mandated

by FL State Supreme Court! Our new SC Chief -- John Roberts was an active participant

in that fascist rally -- and was giving Bush legal advice on how to prevail.

NO police interference with the demonstrators to protect the recount-!!

And, the SC intervened to overturn FL SC rulings --- unprecedented situation -- to put

Bush in WH.


Gore was expected to speak to the public about Global Warming --

yes, the corporate-press will block it. Doesn't matter.

Regarding Internet leverage, I disagree, there is a synergy being created, a higher mind if you will and those political leaders savvy enough to interpret it will find success while those still living in the top down version of rule will become as political dinosaurs.

You have only to look at Obama's appointees to realize what you are saying is unrealistic.

The concept of male superiority is eroding, also as in most any incomplete house or structure the vast majority of it doesn't exist after only the foundation has been laid, but a good foundation sets the framework for solid construction.

We were discussing patriarchy and the past -- the Constitution as an elite/patriarchal document.

The harm done by organized patriarchal religions -- "Manifest Destiny" - Global Warming.

If you want to discuss the present, the Constitution still does not have an Equal Rights

Amendment -- and take a look at the Senate and USHR = Patriarchy.

Most of American hierarchies -- from CIA to universities to think tanks -- continue to be

patriarchal.

Patriarchy will fall if it doesn't again resort to violence -- but there are continuing

signs of that.


If you study history no civilization has been virtuous to our way of thinking, most all prior to ours was far more barbaric and primitive.

No -- Certainly the native American knew nothing like the violence we introduced.

Africa was a civilization of note long before European "civilization."

Patriarchy and its organized patriarchal religions soaked the soil of Europe with blood.

The Crusades set new precedents for violence. "It was a moral setback for humanity."

Patriarchal religions introduced violence with a warrior bloodletting "god."

Old Religions had no such concepts -- based on nature -- and no Satan which is simply

an invention of patriarchy based on their own inner fears, distorted thinking, ugliness.

"Satan" is a reflection of patriarchy, itself -- and its violent obsessions.

[Uncle Joe]

87. The question is, was it politically stupid or not?

I'll agree with you it was a witch hunt, from before Clinton even took office which makes the behavior all the more stupid or if you want to be cynical, Machiavellian.

Obama hasn't even taken office yet, he promised change and the change would come from him, as I stated before I believe the Internet has only begun to scratch the surface of it's capabilities.

We began by actually discussing the First Amendment and that was revolutionary, the Suffragists used their First Amendment rights to get the 19th Amendment passed giving women the right to vote.

The same can be said for the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s, they used the First Amendment.

The Native Americans warred among themselves, virtually no people on the planet have gone without war unless they were isolated. Some of them practiced slavery, and or human sacrifice and leaving old people behind to die when the winter came.

You speak of patriarchal religions and yet fail to give the Founders their due in passing the First Amendment which in effect legally separated government from those religions.

Regarding Patriarchy resorting to violence what better means to avoid violence than to understand one another? Furthermore what better way to understand one another than through unfiltered instant global communication? That's one more reason why the Internet matters.

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. That part put me off. It was an asinine comment.

x(

[deaniac21]

15. Cindy has to be one of the world's smartest people!

[Peace Patriot]

17. I love Cindy and consider her one of the greatest heroes of this era, but I really don't agree

with beating up on the American people, who are among the most heavily propagandized, disempowered victims of Bushwhackism and the global corporate predators behind it--maybe THE most. The Iraqis, the Afghanis and others have suffered mass death, torture, displacement and other horrors, and our soldiers have suffered death, injury and 'stoploss' (slave labor) for the fuckwads who rule over us, and their suffering trumps all. But there is another kind of suffering, from being targeted by psyops, disinformation and 24/7 corpo/fascist propaganda on all channels, and the theft, by our political establishment, of democratic, people power, as with the fast-track installation of 100% non-transparent vote counting systems all over the country between the 2002 to 2004 period. And despite this incredible assault upon our minds, and other oppression that dates back to the Reagan fascists (destruction of S&Ls, re-write of the tax code to favor the rich, etc.), many Americans have managed to see through the propaganda, as early as Feb '03 when nearly 60% of the American people opposed the Iraq War, and, after two stolen elections, and brutal and devious methods of demoralization and disempowerment, many people got up off the ground and started taking back their government and the Democratic Party. It is not news that this is difficult. And some of us anyway have long warned that it is going to take time and hard work--so much damage has been done just to the normal processes of democracy.

So I think that encouragement and praise are the way to go, to help RE-moralize and RE-empower the American people, rather than ranting against them. We are a beaten down people, psychologically. That is our problem--not the desire for peace and justice, but the successful repression of our power to achieve it. Too many of us are convinced that we are powerless. Slowly, with hard work by activists and the more alert and dedicated among us, that is changing. And every step toward re-empowerment should be praised and encouraged, just as if you were training a child to ride a bicycle. You don't do it by yelling at him every time he falters. He's
It is not an exact metaphor--because most Americans are not children. But it will do. Yelling at them merely makes those who have tried feel bad--and possibly even contributes to the general malaise of demoralization. It actually hits activists harder than those who don't think and those who are still living in La La Land. It is a cry of grief, I know, on Cindy's part, and has a sort of blistering Old Testament or Greek, Cassandra-like feel to it. It couldn't stop the Trojan War. It couldn't stop this one. What does? What can? Democracy! The empowerment of the majority. And how do you do that? First, by practical, strategic action as to the levers of power (for instance, the rigged voting machines). Second, by long term, tenacious, grass roots community organizing.

The model I am thinking of is South America today. And the keys to that awesome, peaceful, leftist democracy movement that has swept the continent are these very things: 1) transparent vote counting, and 2) grass roots organization. (And a third: think big!)

Millions of Americans marched against the Iraq War, yet were helpless to prevent it. We voted in 2006 to end it (and in truth also did so in 2004), and yet it goes on and on and on. And millions of Americans have apparently made the judgment that street protest is futile as to change. It may be--and I think is--essential as moral witness, and often as the first foray toward change--and it has been an important tactical leftist tool in South America--but it probably cannot effect change in a country this size. Where is the Bastille? It's 3,000 miles away for many of us. We have exhausted our resources and now are being quite deliberately squeezed and bled to death. And now that the global corporate predators have crowned a new, young emperor--who claims to be for change, but doesn't have the power to initiate real reform, and wouldn't be receiving the crown if he was intent upon it--things are so arranged that HE will take all the blame for unjust war and financial ruin. Street protests, even massive street protests, will likely become just another part of the corpo/fascist game plan. They expect street protests and civil disorder. They have planned for them. And they no doubt have numerous plans and operatives in place to make sure that protest turns into disorder.

The South American model has many lessons for us, but we must take into account our unique circumstances--this huge country, our imperfect community networks (ravaged by corporatism), the sheer size and power of the out-of-control federal government and the police state, and special mechanisms of oppression designed just for us--including our peoples' addiction to corpo/fascist 'news' (even if they don't believe it, they are saturated by it and made to feel helpless and powerless), and the ravaging of all of our government and private institutions. Do you think, if the Seattle protest--50,000 people peacefully shutting down the WTO--occurred today, that head-bashing, CS-gassing the city, the use of agents provocateur and mass arrests--by state/local police forces--would be the response? Those things were mild, bad as they were. We would, first of all, see the U.S. military and private mercenaries used against us. We would see U.S.-occupied Baghdad here. And the U.S. feds further have control of all travel routes in this huge country. And all media. And the ability to monitor and/or shut down the internet and all communications. And every sort of plan in place for initiating martial law, including more lies, psyops and propaganda.

Our political overseers are DEAF to street protests. They DON'T CARE. We could put a million people on Pennsylvania Ave, and it wouldn't change a thing. I can't tell you how much I would love to see such a protest--a million, two million, three million people sitting down on the streets of Washington DC and singing "We Shall Not BE Moved!" To end the war. To end the plunder. To take back our government. The corpo/fascists who have hijacked our military for corporate resource wars, and who are looting us blind, in a series of mind-boggling grand larcenies, would simply move the seat of government to alternative sites, and continue as per usual, while they wait us out, or get military forces in place to remove us to detention camps.

Is such a protest feasible? I don't think so, but you never know. (Never say never when it comes to what the American people are capable of.) Is it likely? That's where I think Cindy is wrong. We are not mature enough yet, as a democracy--after the destruction of our democracy that has occurred--to successfully organize such a rebellion; to make it work; to achieve real reform from it. And to expect people to keep going into the streets for smaller protests--short of shutting down Washington DC (which we can't do anyway--they'd go into bunkers)--is to expect too much, for a people who are only just beginning to understand what has happened to their country and their democracy. More ground work has to be done; more empowerment; more grass roots organizing, and--so important--more work on transparent vote counting and other obvious methods of vote suppression and political corruption.

The South Americans didn't have a successful leftist movement overnight. It took about two decades of ground work on basic institutions. They, too, were hit with crisis after crisis--military dictatorships, torture, mass murder, "shock doctrine" economics--just as we are being hit with crisis after crisis--horribly unjust and horribly expensive war, shredding of our Constitution, looting of every public coffer, global corporate predators writing our laws (and our secret presidential executive orders), and now this Financial 911 that the Bushwhacks have pulled off. The South Americans didn't overturn similar horrors instantly or easily. We have only just begun that work. And any street protest type actions--which I would never rule out (for moral witness, or as initiators of change)--need to be part of a strategic plan to restore democracy here, not just random outcries that can be ignored.

Cindy Sheehan gave me hope in the very darkest hour of this junta--and did the same to others. And I understand her impatience. I would just urge us all to follow the path of compassion and keep putting one foot ahead of the next on the long road to restoring our democracy. Don't give up because people SEEM complacent or blind. Don't give up because this extremely corrupt political establishment is deaf to the people and impervious to our will. Don't give up because the American people fall off the bicycle time and again. Praise and encouragement, and practical action toward empowerment, are the keys to this long-term struggle.

As for impeachment, I think we need to realize that a deal was made--immunity for the main Bushites for their vast crimes, in exchange for their leaving peacefully when the time comes. Nothing we can do about it. Yes, we should never forget their crimes. Yes, we should pursue investigation and prosecution as well as we can. (The South Americans are still doing that--decades later!) No, our current political establishment is never going to hear us on this. They made the deal, in secret. That's my read on the situation, and I think it's pretty close to the truth. Protest against THEM is useless. But working to remove Vichy Democrats and others who have played this game, by empowering and re-enfranchising the people, is NOT useless, and is what we must do.

[truedelphi]

24. If it is true that a deal was struck sotht they woud leave peacefully,

Mayeb we should convince obama that this is one deal that we HAVE TO go back on.

After all, one should not negotiate with terrorists. And contracts signed under duress are not enforceable.

[Political_Junkie]

25. Yes!

Very well said. We are indeed a psychologically scarred people and need to heal from this. That will take time and patience. I just hope the world can wait.

[OwnedByFerrets]

28. If we are victims, we are all victims of our success and of our

apathy. We have too much to lose to chance the loss. We are too comfortable to chance hardship.

[pokercat999]

41. Bingo ! We have a winner. Golden ball and chains hold the

majority of us in check. That is why this failing economy has got to have the ruling class in a thither. They (the elites) know the one thing holding back the masses is the life of comparable luxury we live in. Once our comfortable existence is gone we WILL revolt, they know it and it scares them nearly to death.

[OwnedByFerrets]

52. Thanks Pokercat!

[defendandprotect]

68. They've of course structured this economic "shock and awe" ....

they know the possible repercussions but have that covered ....

the steal was worth it -- bankrupting Treasury disables "people's" government --

they have warprofiteering profits -- and now bailouts = $8.8 trillion.

Plus they're more than close to overturning Constitution/democracy.

After the liberal revolution in the '60's, they decided we had too much money

and too much time -- too much information --

When Communism fell they no longer needed a Middle Class --

[texastoast]

36. Ah, sweet, thoughtful enabler

But an enabler nonetheless. Most Americans don't want empowerment. They want it done for them. Our sense of entitlement will be long in the wearing away, long after we even dare to acknowledge that we caused Bush and supported his office. Praise is most effective after the effort to change is made. Giving up is not an option, but making an apology is not either.

[Peace Patriot]

71. I don't understand your comment. I was not making an "apology" for anybody.

I was trying to discuss what WORKS. You don't cure a battered wife of her addiction to being battered, nor help her achieve a new sense of self-confidence, by yelling at her SOME MORE. I did say, you know, in using my 'teaching a child to ride a bicycle' metaphor that it was not exact, because most Americans are adults. I said "it will do," because I think it is apt. It illustrates my point with an image. The same with a battered wife. The American people are like a battered wife. Beating her up some more, psychologically, DOESN'T WORK. You have to identify the points of strength in her personality and ENCOURAGE them. That's all I am saying. The failure of Americans to exercise vigilance over our election system, for instance--or other failures of the citizenry, moral or strategic/practical--are NOT my point. I could write a long, heavy-duty list of my own of the failures of the American people. But what good does it do to keep badgering people with a moral or vigilance message if they are obviously demoralized and disempowered, and have been psychologically battered by the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies, for decades, and have become addicted to that relentless battering which "says": You are a peon; you have no power; "resistance is futile." Badgering might move some, but most likely it will only move already awakened and active citizens, and will not help them, but will make them feel worse.

Cindy has done more than badger people, of course. She has put her life on the line for peace. And she has suffered a horrible personal loss, as well as considerable vitriol from Democratic "centrists" (i.e., fascists, militarists and war profiteers who parade as Democrats). I understand her rant. I am just suggesting what I think is a more practical and useful approach to invigorating the people as citizens and activists, in taking back their government. Identify the strengths in the citizenry--the people, groups and events that indicate growth and progressive change--and ENCOURAGE them.

I think the "Old Testament"-like rant--'you are immoral, you are lazy, you are addicted to luxury, you are blind to evil deeds' etc.--simply doesn't work. You have to put the hands on the bicycle handles, and put the feet on the pedals, and put the butt on the seat, and give a little push, and say ENCOURAGING things. It is not an exact metaphor, but it is a helpful image. People have to create democracy OF, BY AND FOR THEMSELVES. They cannot be badgered into it. They have to WANT it. They have to "get" the idea for themselves. You will defeat that purpose if you yell things like, 'you are an uncoordinated idiot, you will never learn, you are hopeless, I give up on you!' to someone trying to learn how to ride a bike.

Example: To me, it was absolutely remarkable that nearly 60% of the American people opposed the Iraq War (Feb '03, all polls), just before the invasion, and further that so many--millions of us--were in the streets marching as that dreadful invasion occurred. This, after decades of fascist propaganda poured into peoples' brains, day in, day out. And it was no surprise to me that the rusty old mechanisms of protest, resurrected from the Vietnam era of some forty years ago, failed to stop this war. It WAS a surprise to me, however, that elections did not end it--that our democracy itself had been killed--primarily, in my opinion, by the fast-tracking of 100% non-transparent, corporate-run, electronic vote counting systems all over the country during the 2002 to 2004 period (promoted by a $3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle passed by the Anthrax Congress in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution--Oct '02).

YES, I, a political activist all my life, but most intensely in the 1960s-1970s, FAILED my country by not understanding this election theft machinery until it was too late. I was asleep at the wheel, like so many other Americans. But what good does it do for me to badger myself, or badger anyone else, about our failure? Best to get on it, and FIX IT, and worry later about why we failed--an important issue, but not terribly relevant to the crisis at hand, which is our lack of real representatives of the people in Washington DC, and I am speaking of our own party leaders, including Obama, who is proceeding to appoint warmongers and corporate shills to almost every major position in his government. He was elected to end the war and to represent our interests in this economic meltdown, and he is not doing so--possibly because he cannot, possibly because he never intended to--I don't know which. And, of course, we also don't know the whole story yet--he is not yet president--but it is not looking good for anyone except the global corporate predators. If he proposes throwing Diebold, ES&S and the other election theft corporations out of our election system--totally out, on their ears, into 'Boston Harbor' with their goddamned machines--I might change my opinion of Obama--but I'm not holding my breath. The people whom he seems to be beholden to could have easily--EASILY!--prevented his election, and that is the problem. With 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, run on proprietary code owned and controlled by far rightwing corporations, he looks to the corpo/fascists--as he is obviously doing--because he can't do anything else; he is not answerable to the people any more; they will not permit anyone who IS answerable to the people to enter the White House, or to remain there.

And whose fault is that? Partly mine, and other citizens. And what good does it do to cry out in self-blame and blaming of others? It does little or no good, other than emotional venting. What's needed are encouragement and practical suggestions for re-empowering the people.

[kenichol]

72. Your voice, your expression of your point of view makes you my hero.

Shero?
No matter; you bring out the best in me. Thank you.

[texastoast]

82. You are right

Yelling at the battered wife some more doesn't help, but at what point does the battered wife say "Enough!"? At what point does she get angry, take the kids and flee? There has to be a tipping point, and I'm a bit disheartened that I don't feel I've really seen it yet but I do believe it's coming and soon. Encouragement and praise are a good thing, but similar to raising kids, sometimes that just doesn't work. Getting them to progress requires a large bag of tricks, and sometimes yelling, along with praise, encouragement, incentives, retribution, natural consequences, reward, and all sorts of other approaches work. And yes, today is a new day and we must work from here, remembering our history, to work for progress. I'm waiting to see if Obama's going to really be able to make a difference. I'm sure hoping so. And I plan to party in January like he is! :hi:

[defendandprotect]

66. Love Cindy -- and interesting post --

I do agree Amerians have been heavily propagandized -- if not brainwashed ..

but it's been clear for decades that we need to get elites/corporations out of

government and our elections -- neither of the two parties is going to do that

because it would end their control which keeps them in power. We need to try

to do it anyway. The American public needs to decide on campaigns -- how and when

and where they are run. And I think we need to give control of candidate selection

back to the parties.

Also like you citing Reagan administration and their big steals, but remember Bush I

was VP -- and it's been said that after the assassination attempt on Reagan, Bush

became President. Bush Family had strong connections to John Hinckley's family.

Bush Family was heavily involved in S&L theft and embezzlements.

And agree -- sadly -- with balance of your comments --

We had to have recognized from the very beginning that what our government did

in other countries to other people could next be done to us, at home ...

atomic bombs, coups, economic war, terrorism, kidnappings/murder/torture of citizens/

fixed elections ....

[Doctor Panacea]

83. Wonderful post

Peace Patriot, that was a wonderful, eloquent post. :)

[Dinger]

20. Kickin' For Cindy (nt)

[tomp]

22. hey, if they don't blame us for not overthrowing bush....

....i won't blame them for not overthrowing sadaam.

[Senator]

26. We Can/Must Impeach Now. Cheney Even Confessed Today.

It can all be done in a week. There is literally nothing to "investigate," or even discuss.

A single article for torture -- which cheney admitted to today -- is all that's needed. One vote in the House. A single day in the Senate to hear "defense" (of the indefensible). Obama can even be appointed by Congress to start on an interim basis (who'd object?).

Sure, the 18% who'll "miss" bushcheney (most of who are just lying) may "divisively" whine a bit. But not much.

But 92% of the nation can be united in defense of the values and principles on which America was founded. The world and our children can see us as something other than monsters. Economic and diplomatic relations can be normalized (no one likes to trade with or even talk to war criminals).

And no, http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">Obama does not "get a pass" on war criminality just because our DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy (and perhaps you) don't want to face the reality of failing to ACT to stop atrocities.

Only on Jan. 20 does it become "too late," when Obama becomes President War Crimes II. Only then does the opportunity to stand up for non-torturing Americans -- and our greater generations who fought and died to forge these treaties -- come to an end.

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

----

[illuminaughty]

39. You are correct. They are WAR CRIMINALS

Cheney confessed today and yet we are so lethargic about what this administration had done...is doing. The rest of the world has its eyes wide open to what we've become and we cannot go forward without acting on this.

[dems_rightnow]

94. Congress appoint a President??

"Obama can even be appointed by Congress to start on an interim basis (who'd object?)."

There aren't any provisions for Congress appointing a President. And yeah, I'd STRONGLY object to them assuming they could.

[RandomThoughts]

29. I can think of two different functions of justice.

The first is to stop the individual that is proven wrong from continuing their action. In the case of the Bush administration, this would be impeachment, assuming the overwhelming evidence is correct, and also assuming our society and style of government is just.

The second reason is more subtle. Many times justice is used against individuals to set the standard for others. Many people do the right things only if they know, if they do not, they will get caught. Not everyone lives this way, but many do. Anyway, for the people that live this way they need to see that bad behavior has consequences.

So, Bush is finally leaving office, so the first comment of justice is irrelevant.

But the second one will determine if our country truly has justice or not, and if the leaders of the country, and by extension the citizens, want to have a just society.

Of coarse they may be innocent, so proper investigation, and if merited prosecution in fair trial, and if merited punishment, would be an example of the process of justice.

One final note, any law that is not enforced uniformly, does not exist, and can not be enforced at all. If some people are allowed to break a law, then a claim against another person, who may have done the same thing, is invalid.

When you think about it, its pretty simple, two tier justice, invalidates all claims to authority to enforce justice down to the least common denominator of the application of either tier of justice.

[Mira]

31. All day I missed this important post ! K&R - I LOVE CINDY

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Excellent rant.

And she's right, of course.

[MadMaddie]

33. If an American

President or civilian breaks the law in the US then logically he should be eligible for prosecution. Where am I wrong?

<snip>
According to many Constitutional experts, he cannot be criminally prosecuted for any crime he has committed in office here in the States.
<snip>

* and his cabal of criminals violated the Constitution, committed Treason, spied illegally on Americans, and the list goes on.....so what if there is no precedent of a former president not being prosecuted, it doesn't mean that a former president can't be prosecuted.

[malaise]

34. Brilliant Cindy

K & R

[MellowOne]

35. There's not enough people like Cindy in the US

If we all had her heart, her guts, and her courage, we could have gotten rid of Bush seven years ago.

[pengillian101]

38. There's not enough people like Cindy in the US. n/t

[defendandprotect]

75. There's not enough people like Cindy in the US

Agree --

She has some projects -- including a radio show, I think -- being

hurt by economy--

[judasdisney]

40. Chopra: "George Bush has been throwing shoes at us"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/george-w-bush-has-been-th_b_151536.html

[mmonk]

42. Lots of recommends for Cindy's rant.

Good to see.

[Divine Discontent]

43. she garners lots of attention - and good thing - because she's right.......

I believe we as a nation failed like cowards though, when it comes to B*sh - the SCOTUS should not have been allowed to stop the recount - everyone should have marched who was able the next day on that December day - I know that would have been something of awesome proportions, but it's the truth - and had it occurred they would have had to continue the counting, instead we enjoyed what we had, and hoped he wouldn't be as bad as feared...

well, he was worse.


These designs on dozens of different shirts, button, stickers, mugs & more! http://www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable/1434671

[BelgianMadCow]

48. Her courage resembles that of al-Zaida

recommended

[Senator]

49. K&R&Impeach Now!

[onehandle]

50. posted in wrong place. nt

[happygoluckytoyou]

51. Cindy lost her son Casey.... BUSH PROBABLY WONDERS WHAT HER BEEF IS TOO.... the man is drain bread !

[man4allcats]

53. Sometimes I think Cindy Sheehan is America's conscience.

:kick:

[L0oniX]

54. I would add that since we continue to pay taxes that we are complicit in mass murder.

[ooglymoogly]

55. Happy to see you back on the board Cindy.

Thank you for saying what many of us are feeling. Hope next time you will run as a Dem. out of the gate. KR

[hughee99]

58. I don't know what his beef is either...

there are just so many different reasons for one to throw their shoes at *. How are we to know which one(s) al-Zaidi was concerned about.

It's good to have Cindy back, now that the election is all over, we can all like her again.** :grouphug:



**At least until she attacks Obama

[defendandprotect]

74. I believe as he threw the shoes he mentioned "widows and dead" ...

maybe more -- did they cut it from the video -- ???

[hughee99]

76. The video I saw didn't have that.

though I'm sure I can find an uncut version somewhere.

[rhett o rick]

62. I completely agree that bush is both evil and stupid but.......

We are in a class war. As someone said in DU, we have been in a class war forever. Those in the aristocracy or ruling class are all not completely stupid (let me make it clear bush is stupid) but because of their cultural upbringing they believe that there are different natural laws that govern them, the chosen, and us, born to serve them. So when they act surprised when someone of the lower classes is upset with their actions, I call it a cultural stupidity. The ruling class can not understand that we don't gladly do their bidding.

bush has never had to walk in our shoes, he has no clue.

[MellowOne]

69. excellent thought! n/t

[Javaman]

63. Let's correct something here...

he was appointed in 2000, NOT elected.

in 2004, Ohio was delivered on a silver platter by blackwell when he called a false terror alert and sequestered the voting results behind closed doors.

so please, let's keep the facts straight.

[americanmutt]

65. down with it...K&R

[Annces]

67. I agree

It would help heal our relationship with Iraqis if we impeached Bush.

[LWolf]

91. Well said.

Reading down this thread, I guess it's okay to like Sheehan now that she lost to the complicit Pelosi, lol.

[Luminous Animal]

103. Indeed.

Why it seems just like yesterday when she was driven off this board with accusations of "attention whore", self-pitying, and being a lunatic.

[Bucky]

92. Dumbest, evilest, and most hermetically sealed off from reality