SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jlallen who wrote (169247)8/18/2005 9:39:11 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hello little one.......sorry I didn't get to you sooner.....had a busy, busy day but not too busy to keep you grounded in the truth!

******************************************************

Bad Iraq News Worries Some in G.O.P. on '06

by Adam Nagourney and David Kirkpatrick

WASHINGTON - A stream of bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush's Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles, party officials said Wednesday.

Any effort to explain Iraq as 'We are on track and making progress' is nonsense.

Republican Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker
Some said that the perception that the war was faltering was providing a rallying point for dispirited Democrats and could pose problems for Republicans in the Congressional elections next year.


Republicans said a convergence of events - including the protests inspired by the mother of a slain American soldier outside Mr. Bush's ranch in Texas, the missed deadline to draft an Iraqi Constitution and the spike in casualties among reservists - was creating what they said could be a significant and lasting shift in public attitude against the war.

The Republicans described that shift as particularly worrisome, occurring 14 months before the midterm elections. As further evidence, they pointed to a special election in Ohio two weeks ago, where a Democratic marine veteran from Iraq who criticized the invasion decision came close to winning in a district that should have easily produced a Republican victory.

"There is just no enthusiasm for this war," said Representative John J. Duncan Jr., a Tennessee Republican who opposes the war. "Nobody is happy about it. It certainly is not going to help Republican candidates, I can tell you that much."

Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican who originally supported the war but has since turned against it, said he had encountered "a lot of Republicans grousing about the situation as a whole and how they have to respond to a lot of questions back home."

"I have been to a lot of funerals," Mr. Gilchrest said.


The concern has grown particularly acute as lawmakers have returned home for a Congressional recess this month. Several have seen first-hand how communities are affected by the deaths of a group of local reservists.

In Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Jr., a Democratic challenger to Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, attacked Mr. Santorum on Wednesday for failing to question the management of the war. Mr. Casey said the issue would be a major one in what is quite likely to be one of the most closely watched Senate races next year.

Republicans said they were losing hope that the United States would be effectively out of Iraq - or at least that casualties would stop filling the evening news programs - by the time the Congressional campaigns begin in earnest. Mr. Bush recently declined to set any timetable for withdrawing United States troops.

Grover Norquist, a conservative activist with close ties to the White House and Mr. Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, said: "If Iraq is in the rearview mirror in the '06 election, the Republicans will do fine. But if it's still in the windshield, there are problems."


Given the speed with which public opinion has shifted over the course of the war and the size of the Republican majority in the Senate and House, no one has gone so far as to suggest that war policy could return Democrats to power in the House or the Senate.

Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the Republican Congressional campaign committee, said he believed that the war would fade as an issue by next year and that even if it did not the elections would, as typically the case, be decided by local issues.

"I'm not concerned," Mr. Reynolds said. "Fifteen months away is a long time, and I don't see it. It's going to get back to the important issues of what's going on in the district. When it gets down to candidates, it's what's going on in the street that matters."

Some Republicans suggested that the White House was not handling the issue adroitly, saying its insistence that the war was going well was counterproductive.

"Any effort to explain Iraq as 'We are on track and making progress' is nonsense," Newt Gingrich, a Republican who is a former House speaker, said. "The left has a constant drumbeat that this is Vietnam and a bottomless pit. The daily and weekly casualties leave people feeling that things aren't going well."

Republicans, Mr. Gingrich said, should make the case for "blood, sweat and toil" as part of a much larger war against "the irreconcilable wing of Islam."

Over the considerably longer term, the Iraqi turmoil raises a possibility that the war could again help shape a presidential nominating contest. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant with ties to two potential presidential candidates for 2008, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, predicted that there would be a Republican equivalent of Howard Dean, a candidate opposing the war. He also predicted that such a candidate would not succeed.

Pollsters and political analysts pointed to basic opinion shifts that accounted for the political change. Daniel Yankelovich, a pollster who has been studying American attitudes on foreign affairs, said: "I think what's changed over the last year is the assumption that Iraq would make us safer from terrorists to wondering if that actually is the case. And maybe it's the opposite."

Richard A. Viguerie, a veteran conservative direct-mail consultant, said Mr. Bush "turned the volume up on his megaphone about as high as it could go to try to tie the war in Iraq to the war on terrorism" last year, and he argued that the White House could no longer do that.

"I just don't think it washes after all these years," Mr. Viguerie said.

The other changing factor is the continued drop in Mr. Bush's job-approval rating that could make him less welcome on the campaign trail.

"If this continues to drag down Bush's approval ratings, Republican candidates will be running with Bush as baggage, not as an asset," Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, said. "Should his numbers go much lower, he is going to be a problem for Republican candidates in 2006."

The near success in Ohio by Democrats was achieved after the party had enlisted an Iraq veteran, Paul L. Hackett, who nearly defeated Jean Schmidt.

The chairman of the Democratic Congressional campaign committee, Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, said he was talking to four or five other Iraq veterans to run in open seats or against weak Republican incumbents.

The chairman of the Senate Democratic campaign committee, Charles E. Schumer of New York, said, "There is no question that the Iraq war, without any light at the end of the tunnel apparent to the American people, is becoming more and more a ball and chain rapidly weighing down the administration."

Mr. Schumer, reflecting continued Democratic nervousness at being portrayed as disrespectful of troops, added, "I have been more supportive of the president's war on terror than many Democrats."

This week in Rhode Island, Secretary of State Matthew A. Brown, a Democratic challenger to Senator Lincoln Chafee next year, called on Mr. Bush to set a six-month deadline to bring American troops home from Iraq.

"You owe it to the American people to get this job done and bring our men and women home to their families," Mr. Brown said on Wednesday.


Mr. Chafee's spokesman, Stephen Hourahan, responded by noting that Mr. Chafee had voted against the war, though he said he did not know whether Mr. Chafee would support the type of deadline urged by Mr. Brown.

In Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, the prospective challenger to Mr. Santorum, said he would press the incumbent on why he had not taken a lead in raising questions about the war.

"Most people want to know what is the situation with training the Iraqi forces?" Mr. Casey said. "Where are we? Where are we with getting armor to our troops?"

Mr. Santorum's spokesman, Robert Traynham, said Mr. Santorum would not be hurt by supporting the war.

Mr. Traynham read a statement from Mr. Santorum that said, "Doing what is best for this country is always good politics in terms of protecting us from evil dictators such as Saddam Hussein."

Even apart from these problems, the party of the president in power traditionally loses seats in the midterm election of a second term.

"It's tough," Mr. Murphy, the consultant, said. "The press will try to make Iraq the cause of whatever historical problems we would normally have in an off-year election."

Representative Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican who initially supported the war but has begun calling for a pullout, said, "If your poll numbers are dropping over an issue, and this issue being the war, than obviously there is a message there - no question about it."

"If we are having this conversation a year from now," Mr. Jones added, "the chances are extremely good that this will be unfavorable" for the Republicans.

nytimes.com



To: jlallen who wrote (169247)8/18/2005 9:43:30 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Another GOPer bites the dust. Do you think the GOP will run him again when his term is up? I imagine it might be hard to find an honest GOPer to take his place. What do you think, little one?

********************************************************

Ohio gov. fined but avoids jail on ethics charges

Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:14 PM ET
(Page 1 of 2)

By Jim Lekrone
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft, the great-grandson of a U.S. president, on Thursday admitted violating ethics laws for not disclosing golf outings and other gifts and was fined $4,000, but avoided jail time.

"I accept full responsibility for this mistake. I am very sorry," Taft said in a statement in Franklin County Municipal Court after pleading no contest to four criminal misdemeanor ethics violations. That plea allowed Judge Mark Froehlich to find him guilty.

He could have faced up to six months in jail on each of the four counts, but a plea agreement reached with prosecutors that Taft signed in court limited his punishment to the fine.

Taft, 63, has previously accepted responsibility for the reporting lapses but insisted again that he would not resign before his second and final term is up in January 2007.

In his long tenure in state government, including two terms as governor and two terms as secretary of state, Taft had developed a reputation for demanding strict adherence to ethics laws by state employees -- which made his lapses all the more glaring.

"In this instance, I have failed to meet those high expectations and I am very disappointed in myself," a contrite Taft told reporters after the court proceeding.

continued.........

today.reuters.com



To: jlallen who wrote (169247)8/19/2005 3:40:41 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 281500
 
How's it going small fry-er tuck? More bad news for Mr. Bush.

**********************************************************

Has the "Tipping Point" on Iraq Been Reached?

Analysis by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Aug 18 (IPS) - Has the U.S. public lost so much confidence in the George W. Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war that its current strategy -- to the extent one actually exists -- is unsustainable?

With Pres. Bush himself besieged by anti-war protesters on his seemingly endless and ill-timed vacation at his Texas ranch, that appears to be The Big Question, just two weeks before the resumption of official business back in Washington.

Both Republican lawmakers, who face mid-term elections in 15 months from now, and the military itself, which, as a result of the Vietnam debacle, has taken as an article of faith that the loss of civilian support must be avoided at all costs, appear increasingly restive and unhappy with the course of events.

"There are more and more voices within the party and military who are beginning to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq is not only not improving, but is actually getting worse," said Jim Cason of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a lobby group that opposed the war.

"The administration is under more and more pressure from within -- especially from the Pentagon and influential Republicans on Capitol Hill -- and it clearly hasn't figured out what to do about it."


Media coverage of the war has turned particularly gloomy over the past several weeks, and particularly since the Aug. 3 killing of 14 U.S. servicemen in one deadly bombing incident.

The front-page headlines tell the story. "In Iraq, No Clear Finish Line," which ran in the Washington Post a week ago, was soon succeeded by "U.S. Lowers Sights on What Can be Achieved in Iraq," which was then eclipsed by a more general analysis Thursday entitled "U.S. Policy on 'Axis of Evil' Suffers Spate of Setbacks."

Among other points, that article noted that the administration's blunders in Iraq had clearly strengthened the strategic position of North Korea and especially Iran, whose influence with the new government in Baghdad has been growing steadily, much to Washington's discomfort.

As for the other "court paper" of the U.S. capital, the New York Times, a searing critique of Bush's policy by columnist Frank Rich entitled "Someone Tell the President the War is Over" appeared virtually everywhere on the Internet almost the instant that it was published last Sunday.

And an analysis Thursday, "Bad Iraq War News Has Some in the G.O.P. (Republican Party) Worried over '06 Vote," argued that even among staunch war hawks in Congress, Iraq was fast becoming a political albatross of Vietnam-like dimensions.

Even arch-hawk Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, admitted that the near-victory of the Democratic candidate and Iraq veteran who denounced Bush as a "chicken hawk" in a solidly Republican district in Ohio earlier this month was a "wake-up call" for the party.

Public opinion polls have been telling a similar story. A Newsweek poll taken two weeks ago found that confidence in Bush's handling of the war had fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, which, as Rich pointed out, was roughly equivalent to the approval rating of former President Lyndon Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War after the 1968 Tet offensive that is widely believed to have marked the "tipping point" in public opposition to Washington's intervention in Indochina.

An earlier Associated Press-Ipsos survey found somewhat more support for Bush's Iraq policy -- 38 percent. But that was also an all-time low for that survey and was also conducted just before the killing of the 14 Marines.

Another poll by USA Today, CNN, and Gallup published a few days later found majorities believe that going to war in Iraq was a mistake and has made the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism, and now favour withdrawing U.S. troops. A third of those questioned said they want all troops withdrawn immediately.

Growing tensions within the administration and among its supporters have also contributed to the sense of disarray that has taken hold.

When senior military commanders began floating the idea that Washington could begin withdrawing substantial numbers of its 140,000 troops in Iraq by next spring, Bush himself dismissed it as mere speculation.

That exchange, in addition to further alienating the officer corps from the White House, spurred a spate of new attacks by prominent neo-conservatives against Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, whom they have always blamed for being insufficiently committed to "transforming" Iraq.


"What the president needs to do now is tell the Pentagon to stop talking about (and planning for) withdrawal, and make sure they are planning for victory," wrote William Kristol in The Weekly Standard, adding "...to win, the president needs a defence secretary who is willing to fight and able to win."

Writing in the Washington Post, Frederick Kagan, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), also denounced against any talk of withdrawal as "dangerous and unwarranted", arguing that the "light infantry" and police forces being trained by Washington will "be dependent on significant levels of U.S. military support for years to come".

Yet even Kagan's AEI colleague, economist Kevin Hassett, suggested that Iraq has now become a major political problem for Bush and the Republicans, one that prevented the public from recognising how well the U.S. economy is performing.

"Why Are Americans Sour About Everything?" he asked in a column this week for Bloomberg. "Iraq," he replied, noting the imminence of next year's election campaign.

To the surprise of many observers, Bush, who has spent three weeks at his ranch desperately avoiding meeting with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who has emerged as an anti-war icon, has done nothing to dispel the growing malaise.

While his media supporters have mounted a predictably nasty campaign to discredit Sheehan, her presence at "Camp Casey", the spot where she and her supporters are conducting their vigil in Crawford, Bush's failure to meet with her because "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life" appears surprisingly callous.


The passivity of his handlers in permitting Sheehan to dominate news coverage from the Texas White House has also surprised observers and bolstered the impression that the administration has both lost its political touch and has no answers to the kinds of questions Sheehan and the public at large are raising.

While the administration's predicament clearly favours Democrats, signs that Iraq is fuelling potential political problems for them are also on the rise. While prominent Democrats in the House of Representatives, unlike their Republican colleagues, have already lined up in favour of a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, the party's most prominent figures in the Senate, from which the 2008 presidential candidate is likely to emerge, have until now generally remained hawkish on Iraq, lest they be considered "soft" on national security.

On Wednesday, however, Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold, a normally cautious lawmaker who is considering a presidential bid, broke ranks with other likely candidates, including Sens. Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden, by calling for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 and calling his party colleagues "too timid" in challenging Bush on the issue.

His challenge came as some party members have expressed growing anxiety over the deepening rift between grassroots Democrats who support withdrawal and more hawkish party leaders who have echoed Bush in asserting that U.S. credibility would suffer irreversible harm if Washington fails to pacify the country. (END/2005)



ipsnews.net



To: jlallen who wrote (169247)8/19/2005 3:54:31 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
They are laughing at us, little one. Do you see where your myth based, fork lorish politics have gotten us?

***********************************************************

Global warming: Will you listen now, America?

Two of the leading contenders to contest the next US presidential election have delivered an urgent warning to the United States on global warming, saying the evidence of climate change has become too stark to ignore and human activity is a major cause.

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 19 August 2005

On a high-profile and bi-partisan fact-finding tour in Alaska and Canada's Yukon territory, Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic senator for New York, were confronted by melting permafrost and shrinking glaciers and heard from native Inuit that rising sea levels were altering their lives.

"The question is how much damage will be done before we start taking concrete action," Mr McCain said at a press conference in Anchorage. "Go up to places like we just came from. It's a little scary." Mrs Clinton added: "I don't think there's any doubt left for anybody who actually looks at the science. There are still some holdouts, but they're fighting a losing battle. The science is overwhelming."

Their findings directly challenge President George Bush's reluctance to legislate to reduce America's carbon emissions. Although both senators havetalked before of the need to tackle global warming, this week's clarion call was perhaps the clearest and most urgent. It also raises the prospect that climate change and other environmental issues could be a factor in the presidential contest in 2008 if Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain enter it. Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain, who represents Arizona, are among the leading, and the most popular, likely contenders.

That they chose Alaska as the stage from which to force global warming on to the American political agenda was not a matter of chance. In many ways, this separated US state is the frontline in the global warming debate. Environmentalists say the signs of climate change are more obvious there than perhaps anywhere else in the US.

Dan Lashof, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defence Council, a respected Washington-based group, told The Independent: "People in Alaska are starting to freak out. The retreat of the sea ice allows the oceans to pound the coast more, and villages there are suffering from the effects of that erosion. There is permafrost melting, roads are buckling, there are forests that have been infested with beetles because of a rise in temperatures. I think residents there feel it's visible more and more, more than any other place in the country."

President Bush's administration has repeatedly questioned the evidence of global warming and the contribution of human activity to any shift. Mr Bush, who in 2001 refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty on global warming weeks after he took office, has repeatedly been accused of doing nothing to enforce tighter controls on emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases". But this summer, the US National Academy of Sciences - and the scientific academies of the other G8 nations as well as Brazil, China and India - issued a statement saying there was strong evidence that significant global warming was happening and that "it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".

They called on world leaders to recognise "that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost". Mrs Clinton, who must first win her re-election to the US senate next year if she is to enter the 2008 White House race, said at the press conference that she had spoken to scientists as well as native Alaskans during the trip.

She said that, flying over the Yukon, she saw forests devastated by spruce bark beetles, believed to be increasing at an unprecedented rate because of warmer weather. She also talked of what a 93-year-old woman at a fish camp at Whitehorse told her. The woman said she had been fishing there all her life but now fish have strange bumps on them.

"It's heartbreaking to see the devastation," Mrs Clinton said. Mr McCain, Mrs Clinton and Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine, also went to Barrow, the northernmost city in the US. There, they spoke to scientists and Inupiaq Inuit. They also saw shrinking glaciers in Kenai Fjords National Park.

Mr McCain - with Senator Joe Lieberman - is behind proposed legislation that would require power-generating companies to reduce carbon emissions to their 2000 levels. Mr Graham, a Republican, said he had been moved by what he had seen. "Climate change is different when you come here, because you see the faces of people experiencing it. If you go to the people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, you're not listening."

Mrs Collins, a Democrat, was even more convinced. She said the evidence in Alaska represented the "canary in the mine shaft of global warming crying out to us to pay attention".

On a high-profile and bi-partisan fact-finding tour in Alaska and Canada's Yukon territory, Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic senator for New York, were confronted by melting permafrost and shrinking glaciers and heard from native Inuit that rising sea levels were altering their lives.

"The question is how much damage will be done before we start taking concrete action," Mr McCain said at a press conference in Anchorage. "Go up to places like we just came from. It's a little scary." Mrs Clinton added: "I don't think there's any doubt left for anybody who actually looks at the science. There are still some holdouts, but they're fighting a losing battle. The science is overwhelming."

Their findings directly challenge President George Bush's reluctance to legislate to reduce America's carbon emissions. Although both senators havetalked before of the need to tackle global warming, this week's clarion call was perhaps the clearest and most urgent. It also raises the prospect that climate change and other environmental issues could be a factor in the presidential contest in 2008 if Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain enter it. Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain, who represents Arizona, are among the leading, and the most popular, likely contenders.

That they chose Alaska as the stage from which to force global warming on to the American political agenda was not a matter of chance. In many ways, this separated US state is the frontline in the global warming debate. Environmentalists say the signs of climate change are more obvious there than perhaps anywhere else in the US.

Dan Lashof, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defence Council, a respected Washington-based group, told The Independent: "People in Alaska are starting to freak out. The retreat of the sea ice allows the oceans to pound the coast more, and villages there are suffering from the effects of that erosion. There is permafrost melting, roads are buckling, there are forests that have been infested with beetles because of a rise in temperatures. I think residents there feel it's visible more and more, more than any other place in the country."

President Bush's administration has repeatedly questioned the evidence of global warming and the contribution of human activity to any shift. Mr Bush, who in 2001 refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty on global warming weeks after he took office, has repeatedly been accused of doing nothing to enforce tighter controls on emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases". But this summer, the US National Academy of Sciences - and the scientific academies of the other G8 nations as well as Brazil, China and India - issued a statement saying there was strong evidence that significant global warming was happening and that "it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".
They called on world leaders to recognise "that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost". Mrs Clinton, who must first win her re-election to the US senate next year if she is to enter the 2008 White House race, said at the press conference that she had spoken to scientists as well as native Alaskans during the trip.

She said that, flying over the Yukon, she saw forests devastated by spruce bark beetles, believed to be increasing at an unprecedented rate because of warmer weather. She also talked of what a 93-year-old woman at a fish camp at Whitehorse told her. The woman said she had been fishing there all her life but now fish have strange bumps on them.

"It's heartbreaking to see the devastation," Mrs Clinton said. Mr McCain, Mrs Clinton and Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine, also went to Barrow, the northernmost city in the US. There, they spoke to scientists and Inupiaq Inuit. They also saw shrinking glaciers in Kenai Fjords National Park.

Mr McCain - with Senator Joe Lieberman - is behind proposed legislation that would require power-generating companies to reduce carbon emissions to their 2000 levels. Mr Graham, a Republican, said he had been moved by what he had seen. "Climate change is different when you come here, because you see the faces of people experiencing it. If you go to the people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, you're not listening."

Mrs Collins, a Democrat, was even more convinced. She said the evidence in Alaska represented the "canary in the mine shaft of global warming crying out to us to pay attention".


news.independent.co.uk



To: jlallen who wrote (169247)8/20/2005 3:29:07 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hypocrites and Liars


by Cindy Sheehan

The media are wrong. The people who have come out to Camp Casey to help coordinate the press and events with me are not putting words in my mouth, they are taking words out of my mouth. I have been known for sometime as a person who speaks the truth and speaks it strongly. I have always called a liar a liar and a hypocrite a hypocrite. Now I am urged to use softer language to appeal to a wider audience. Why do my friends at Camp Casey think they are there? Why did such a big movement occur from such a small action on August 6, 2005?

I haven't had much time to analyze the Camp Casey phenomena. I just read that I gave 250 interviews in less than a weeks time. I believe it. I would go to bed with a raw throat every night. I got pretty tired of answering some questions, like: 'What do you want to say to the President?' and 'Do you really think he will meet with you?' However, since my mom has been sick I have had a chance to step back and ponder the flood gates that I opened in Crawford, TX.

I just read an article posted today on LewRockwell.com by artist Robert Shetterly who painted my portrait. The article reminded me of something I said at the Veteran's for Peace Convention the night before I set out to Bush's ranch in my probable futile quest for the truth. This is what I said:

"I got an e-mail the other day and it said, 'Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity '. There's people on the fence that get offended.'

And you know what I said? 'You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?'

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."


This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George's ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can't come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.

One thing I haven't noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush's war for imperialism and insatiable greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side of the road holding up signs that remind me that 'Freedom isn't Free' but I don't see them putting their money where their mouths are. I don't think they are willing to pay even a small down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own blood or the flesh of their children. I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game.

Contrary to what the mainstream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, TX. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I left even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: 'My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it.' I have never said 'pretty please' or 'thank you.' I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses 'Patriotic Rhetoric.' I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD's or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the U.S. military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.

Now I am being vilified and dragged through the mud by the righties and so-called 'fair and balanced' mainstream media who are afraid of the truth and can't face someone who tells it by telling any truth of their own. Now they have to twist, distort, lie, and scrutinize anything I have ever said when they never scrutinize anything that George Bush said or is saying. Instead of asking George or Scotty McClellan if he will meet with me, why aren't they asking the questions they should have been asking all along: 'Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to 'complete the mission' when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is and you can change it at will like you change your cowboy shirts?'

Camp Casey has grown and prospered and survived all attacks and challenges because America is sick and tired of liars and hypocrites and we want the answers to the tough questions that I was the first to dare ask. THIS is George Bush's accountability moment and he is failing miserably. George Bush and his advisers seriously 'misunderestimated' me when they thought they could intimidate me into leaving before I had the answers, or before the end of August. I can take anything they throw at me, or Camp Casey. If it shortens the war by a minute or saves one life, it is worth it. I think they seriously 'misunderestimated' all mothers. I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child relationships and if they are surprised that there are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly meaningless deaths?

The Camp Casey movement will not die until we have a genuine accounting of the truth and until our troops are brought home. Get used to it George, we are not going away.




To: jlallen who wrote (169247)8/21/2005 3:35:49 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hey little dude, where have you been......everyone is missing you little time. ;~)

*********************************************************

Mother tips the balance against Bush

Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside the President's ranch has galvanised the anti-war movement - and provoked a vicious political slanging match. Paul Harris reports

Sunday August 21, 2005
The Observer

Candles were lit all across America last week in one of the largest single anti-war protests in recent US history. At more than 1,600 vigils tens of thousands of protesters gathered in solidarity with the woman who has been the catalyst for the rebirth of the anti-war movement: Cindy Sheehan.

Her remarkable one-woman stand outside George Bush's Texas ranch has turned into a national phenomenon - and one of the most vicious political slanging matches in recent US history. On the pro-war side, Sheehan has been derided as a traitor to America, betraying her dead soldier son's memory. On the anti-war side she has become a secular saint, laden with the powerful imagery of the avenging mother roused to action. For them, she is the lone soccer mom who is taking on Bush - and winning.

Either way, Sheehan is the most talked-about woman in American politics. She might also be Bush's worst public relations nightmare. For months Washington has been awash in speculation of a 'tipping point', when the majority of American public opinion turns finally and permanently against the war. Many now believe that Sheehan has provided that final push. 'It has definitely tipped now,' said Professor Steve Zunes, a political scientist at the University of San Francisco.

The power of last week's vigils was hard to ignore. They took place in areas as diverse as Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Oklahoma City. From outside the White House itself to tiny Concord, New Hampshire. From small towns in the Midwest to big cities on the coast, no state was left untouched. From Red States to Blue States, the effect was to galvanise the anti-war movement in a way nothing else has done since the American-led invasion more than two years ago.

Sheehan's protest began simply enough. Mourning the loss of her soldier son, Casey, in Iraq she camped outside the ranch where Bush is holidaying for the summer. She vowed to stay until he left or she spoke with him face-to-face. Pitting a lone protester against the President would seem to have been an uneven battle. But, as Sheehan's camp and cause swelled in numbers, she became the story of the summer. In Sheehan v Bush, it is the grieving mother who has landed the big punches so far.

Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans believe Iraq has been mishandled. A Gallup poll last week showed 54 per cent believe it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq. Bush's approval ratings have slumped to the 30s. The analogy with Vietnam and the steady bleeding away of support for that conflict is a strong one.

'You can see that once support for the Vietnam war dipped below 50 per cent, it never came back,' said Professor Rick Stoll of Rice University. That has now happened with Iraq.

But questions remain on the political impact of the collapse in support for the war. With Bush in his second term and unable to seek re-election, there is no direct political pressure on him to change policy. 'A President can fight an unpopular war for years if necessary,' said Stoll. But many Republicans in Congress will be fighting tough elections in 2006. If the situation in Iraq has not improved by then, the war could become a millstone around the party's neck and inflict some serious losses. So far, however, there are few Democrat politicians advocating a swift withdrawal from Iraq.

But that could change as the anti-war movement spreads - and it is now attracting some powerful followers. Backing Sheehan in Texas are other parents who have lost children in Iraq. They have been joined by some Iraq veterans who have now left the military. FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley has also arrived in Texas, as has Becky Lourey, another mother who has lost her son in Iraq and a state senator in Minnesota.


Many anti-war protesters believe their political clout can only grow as they start to run for office. They take as a lesson a recent local election in Ohio where an Iraq war veteran, running on an explicit anti-war platform, came within a whisker of defeating a Republican opponent in an area of the state where Republican support is strongest.

Republican analysts have responded with a ferocious attack on Sheehan and her supporters. This week an attack ad produced by a Republican strategist will start airing on CNN and Fox. It features Deborah Johns, whose son is serving in Iraq. Johns explicitly attacks Sheehan. 'Cindy Sheehan certainly does not speak to me,' Johns says in the ad.

Other attacks have been more brutal. Sheehan has been the subject of relentless assault by right-wing radio and TV commentators such as shock jock Rush Limbaugh and Fox TV's Bill O'Reilly. She has been accused of anti-semitism over remarks about America's policy towards Israel and dismissed as the dupe of left-wing groups.

The effect on Sheehan's personal life has been disastrous. She recently left her camp, vowing to come back, to visit her mother who has just had a stroke. Her husband has filed for divorce and members of her family have condemned her protest. Despite this, she has remained defiant. In a conference call with reporters last week she said it was worth it: 'I put myself out there and I'm willing to take it.'

She has certainly proved herself media savvy. It has helped that she has come to prominence in August when news executives are desperate for a running story and the White House press corps struggles to file stories during Bush's five-week stay at his ranch. She also has the practical help and backing of powerful liberal groups such as MoveOn.org. It is not every grieving mother who can organise national conference calls, appear regularly on national TV shows and run a sophisticated internet campaign that is probably now the anti-war movement's most powerful tool in organising events across America.

Sheehan has undoubtedly exposed deep fractures within the American public. But for every parent of a soldier in Iraq joining her, others have been swift to condemn her campaign. Some parents have travelled to Sheehan's camp to take down crosses commemorating their dead children.

One such was Gary Qualls, whose son died in Falluja. 'I find it disrespectful,' he said. A Crawford resident drove his truck over the field of crosses by the roadside. Yet another fired his gun over the heads of the protesters.

Yet Sheehan has become the lone voice that kick-started a chorus. Whether Bush agrees to her demand for a meeting (and it is unlikely he will) is now largely irrelevant.<b/> The political legacy left by her summer of protest will last far longer than the ramshackle tents of Camp Casey lining the roads outside Bush's ranch. 'This is now about far more than Cindy Sheehan. She has given people the confidence to speak out about the war that they didn't have before. Finally, its OK in America to be anti-war,' Zunes said.

What they say

Perhaps someday a President will greet Cindy Sheehan this way: 'So you're the little woman who stopped the Iraq war'
New York Daily News columnist Mike Goodwin

Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming on to it. It's not real Radio shock jock Rush Limbaugh comparing media coverage of Sheehan to the 'Memogate' saga last year over President Bush's National Guard record

It's amazing that the White House does not have the elementary shrewdness to have Mr Bush simply walk down the driveway and hear the woman out or invite her in for a cup of tea
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd

Cindy Sheehan has become a political player whose primary concern is embarrassing the President. She is no longer just a protester
Fox News conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly

Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive
Pro-war Vanity Fair writer Chistopher Hitchens

observer.guardian.co.uk