Cindy leaves dems,what will the dems do now???-

I want my mommy. Bad Republicans, ineffective Democrats make Cindy cry.

I don't blame her for leaving the Dems -- they're selling out the public. Both parties could easily meld into one big, ineffective turd, if they haven't already.

Anyone who blindly follows the party of his/her choice without questioning the actions of the representatives, such as mysteryman does, is a person of questionable intelligence.

Sorry, mysteryman, just stating my opinion.

Please don't report me.

mm, stop being a childish dick, people will confuse us.

Good for Cindy.

This statement makes no sense.
I dont blindly follow anyone,especially not a politician.

How about an ideology, like conservativism?

I too cast my vote to replace Rick Santorum and a few others in order to get this war behind us. Cindy is making a point that, because of her nooriety, will pewrhaps catch some Dems eyes and make them think that they can easily be replaced.
The Republicans lied to us by getting us into this war under false pretenses.

The Dems have now lied to us when many of the newly ele cted Senators and Congressman said they would make this wr fiasco a "top priority". SO the DEms are lying to us also.

Is there no politician out there worth a bucket of warm spit?

I'm surprised. I didn't think edgar was such a shill for the Democratic party.

What a sucker I am for attempts at poetic expression.

Cindy Sheehan, the absolute darling of the Democratic Party, comes to the realization that politics is just that and her response is "A plague on both your houses!"

Edgar Shill, who probably sang poor Cindy's praises when she was all in W's face, finds her to, now, be a nasty whiner.

What a poor lot you are edgar, nothing like the angels in your songs.

Finn, nice attempt at trying to swerve the cameras off the real problem. This country has been lead by immoral incompetents for so long that you are stuck with the Rictus Bushus on your face.
Cindy is impatient impatient basedupon the last elections mandate, and so am I, this war is the stupidest, most illogical act weve ever done since Picketts Charge.. We waste capitol and lives and we hold none of these coddled incompetent nincompoops responsible mostly because the GOP is chain linked asshole to asshole. Well, someone has to exert leadership and our one party system is getting annoying.
So, you stand on getting our kids further dead by this adventure? Do you EVER exercise individual thought?

I move we start an initiative that would mandate that both Houses of Congress must meet in the Green Zone until all the US troops are withdrawn.

Joe(they won't send their own kids, so let's send them.)Nation

Hmm, Let me consider that caferfully and weigh the pros and cons


OK lets roll,line em up and give em uniforms with Elephants and Mules on the back. All the presidential candidates right after the White House staff.

(I wanna keep Bush alive for a post presidential trial)

Here is a good article on Iraq. In my view, it validates Cindy's disgust and resignation.


^5/30/07: Dying for an Iraq That Isn't

By Harold Meyerson (Washington Post)

Of all the absurdities attending our unending war in Iraq, the greatest
is this: We are fighting to defend that which is not there.

We are fighting for a national government that is not national but
sectarian, and has shown no capacity to govern. We are training Iraq's
security forces to combat sectarian violence though those forces are
thoroughly sectarian and have themselves engaged in large-scale
sectarian violence. We are fighting for a nonsectarian, pluralistic
Iraq, though whatever nonsectarian and pluralistic institutions existed
before our invasion have long since been blasted out of existence. In
the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the one nonsectarian party,
which ran both Shiite and Sunni candidates, won just 8 percent of the vote.

Every day, George W. Bush asks young Americans to die in defense of an
Iraq that has ceased to exist (if it ever did) in the hearts and minds
of Iraqis. What Iraqis believe in are sectarian or tribal Iraqs -- a
Shiite Iraq, a Sunni Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish Iraqi state, an Iraq
where Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani or Moqtada al-Sadr or some other
chieftain holds sway.

These are the Iraqs for which Iraqis are willing to kill and die.

Whatever their merits and their shortcomings, they are at least rooted
in reality. These Iraqs have adherents and territory. The Iraq for which
Bush compels Americans to fight has neither.

One of the mysteries of the current discussion of how best to get out of
Iraq is that so many otherwise clear-eyed critics of administration
policy say we should withdraw our combat troops but leave units behind
to train Iraqi forces. As rational policy, it's vastly preferable to
leaving combat forces there as well, but it leaves unanswered the
question of which Iraqi forces, exactly, we should train. Those of the
current Shiite-dominated Nouri al-Maliki government, which has employed
Shiite forces to terrorize Sunni areas? What exactly would we train
these forces to do? Be more tolerant of the Sunnis? Would that we could,
and would that we could train Sunnis to be more tolerant of the Shiites,
but these are matters not subject to training.

When Gen. David Petraeus testifies to Congress in September, he should
be asked how many nonsectarian units the Iraqis are fielding, in actions
that effectively build a nonsectarian Iraq. If the answer is zero,
Congress could declare that it is U.S. policy to bolster Shiite Islam --
or, alternatively, Sunni Islam -- with the force of our arms. Or maybe,
just maybe, it could begin mandating the withdrawal of American forces.

It cannot, alas, compel the Bush administration to engage in the
wide-ranging diplomacy that could result in a formal partition of Iraq
that might be less bloody than the de facto partition currently
underway. The president argues that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq
is all that prevents an all-out civil war there. Unless you believe,
however, that the U.S. occupation can magically quell or outlast Iraq's
sectarian rifts, then an internationally and domestically negotiated
partition should be the most urgent task of U.S. statecraft.

Many of my antiwar friends were furious at Democratic congressional
leaders last week for their failure to attach withdrawal deadlines to or
cut funding from our occupation of Iraq -- a failure chiefly
attributable to the simple fact that the votes weren't there for either
option. What they should recall, however, is that the much more heavily
Democratic Congress that hastened the end of the Vietnam War during
Richard Nixon's presidency did so by passing a series of incremental
measures, each of which constrained Nixon's warmaking powers a bit more
than the last. In succession, Congress banned the use of funds for
military actions in Laos and Thailand, then (after Nixon ordered the
invasion of Cambodia) banned the use of ground forces in Cambodia.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, one of the Democrats' foremost
doves, three times introduced an amendment that would have ended U.S.
involvement in Vietnam within nine months of enactment, but it never
passed.

It took the Democrats, and their dovish Republican allies, four full
years to pass a cutoff of funds for U.S. ground forces in Vietnam, by
which point Nixon had already pulled all ground forces out (though the
legislation kept him from putting those forces back in, which was not a
mere academic possibility). That hardly means that Mansfield betrayed
the cause of peace, any more than Nancy Pelosi's failure to shut down
the war last week means that she sold out to the Bush administration.
Mansfield put one antiwar bill after another to a vote, winning more and
more support each time around, leaving Nixon with fewer and fewer
options. Pelosi is steering the same course, for a war even more
reckless and absurd than Vietnam.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Finn, I've watched you be a sap on these threads for a long time, projecting a savage image to bull over whom you perceive as weak, but, ultimately having a point of view only a bunch of dimwitted fundamentalist types could love. You are so weak in the reasoning department, you can't discern between joke and diatribe. Cindy is twice the person someone like you can ever hope to be, and she is too good for the politicians of the day, apparently.