Sheehan to Pelosi: Impeach Bush or face me on ballot

I can "feel" Sheehans pain, but she, like the American people must know that it is the REPUBLICAN PARTY that holds the votes to override the veto. This war belongs to the republicans and they need to be held accountable. However, she can run if she wants, but good luck with that.

Hey Dems, how do you feel about the lunatic left now?

You guys are reaping what you've sown. You cozied up to crazies like Sheehan to get elected and now they're turning on you with the same vitriol they once reserved for Republicans. Buyer beware.

You should've known that these "activists" were closet-anarchists the moment they started appearing with a thug like Hugo Chavez.

I can't feel a bit sorry for Pelosi. You created this monster, Nancy, and now it's turning its rhetorical guns on you. Proud of yourself, Nancy?

Recycling Mother Sheehan? Is there any leftist too nutso, too obscure, too "yesterday's news" for Frank James?

Well, why should a little thing like living in the district of the people you're running to represent keep a fringe activist with no experience like Mother Sheehan from running?

p.s. I hope Casey's Dad got the house in the divorce.

Hey Dems, how do you feel about the lunatic left now?
Posted by: Hillaryis44 | July 9, 2007 10:19 AM

I hate bust your bubble, but I really think the right, along with the press, paid more attention to her than most Americans. I think most Americans felt for her loss, but I think she played far less a role in anything than you give her credit for. I guess I should ask then: Hey repubs, how do you feel about owning the Iraqi war?

Hey repubs, how do you feel about owning the Iraqi war?

Posted by: bill r. | July 9, 2007 10:39 AM

I feel great! I watch heros everyday on TV. Each explosion is the sound of tyranny's walls coming down. If you follow it long enough, the rainbow ends in Iraq.

something has to be done we all need to take a deep breath and pray that God's Will be done for a speedy
resolution to this mess we are in!!!

As a conservative, I never thought I'd feel sympathy for Speaker Pelosi. But I do now.

And while the Bush Administration's bungle after bungle after bungle in Iraq will one day be cited in history/political science textbooks as the quintessential way NOT to fight a war, I also feel sympathy for Cindy Sheehan. That woman is in a load of pain and her activities over the past couple of years, misguided and embarassing as they've been, are the longest and loudest howl of a mother's grief I've ever heard. It's sad, and I pray for her.

I feel great! I watch heros everyday on TV. Each explosion is the sound of tyranny's walls coming down. If you follow it long enough, the rainbow ends in Iraq.

Posted by: Earl Wingate | July 9, 2007 10:53 AM

Mr. Vice President? Posting from your bunker?

Living in the San Francisco area parttime as we do, the standing joke here is the question of how anyone -- including Cindy Sheehan -- could get to the left of Nancy Pelosi.

Tim,

I'm probably from the opposite end of the political spectrum, and I couldn't have said it better.

feel great! I watch heros everyday on TV. Each explosion is the sound of tyranny's walls coming down. If you follow it long enough, the rainbow ends in Iraq.

Posted by: Earl Wingate | July 9, 2007 10:53 AM

Thats a shame on so many levels. Unlike a lot of people who watch war on their bigscreen tv, I can tell you personally from serving in Nam, those bombs and bullets seem nothing like tyrannys walls coming down to the brothers in harms way. There is tyranny everywhere so I hope you have lots of bombs. Kinda like "bullets from Jesus" Huh?

Recycling Mother Sheehan? Is there any leftist too nutso, too obscure, too "yesterday's news" for Frank James?

Posted by: Bruce | July 9, 2007 10:31 AM

Bruce has officially entered the lunatic fringe. Bruce it's news. Might very well be news that is sad due to Cindy Sheehan's pain. But it is still report worthy news. Tim 1979 you hit the nail on the head. The woman is hurting. Her actions have been shall we say unwise at times, but ya gotta feel for her.

Loony, goony, liberal lefty. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...Money is everything and more important than family or friends.

I feel great! I watch heros everyday on TV. Each explosion is the sound of tyranny's walls coming down. If you follow it long enough, the rainbow ends in Iraq.

Posted by: Earl Wingate | July 9, 2007 10:53 AM

Every explosion is the sound of some thing or some person or some people getting blown up, you dolt. If you were not such a coward, and had instead volunteered to fight in this supposedly important conflict, you'd know that destruction is a bad thing.

Thanks, though, for allowing us to crawl inside the empty head of a dead-ender, Earl. You are a true American, unfortunately.

Sorry, but I disagree with all of you here. Sheehan has shown more guts and resolve than all of our government leaders.... and certainly all us posters here combined. She has taken her plea to leaders around the world. She is neither left or right. So we can all sit and tap on our keyboards while Sheehan is out there pushing the envelope to get questions answered and a path to peace restored.

Ms. Sheehan is free to run for any office she wants to, any time there's a race. If the people elect her, she's in -- and if they don't elect her, she's NOT in. Pretty simple system. She doesn't need to try extortion to get her way with this. Bill R is right -- the Republicans paid a lot more attention to Sheehan than we ever did.

Personally, I think the Dems have better leverage if they keep this whole investigation going at a simmer until early next spring, and then start letting fly with the subpoenas. The Republicans will be exposed, Dems will be the saviors, and it will be timed perfectly for the '08 election. Unless Republican support for Bush drops dramatically, or unless he gets SO bad that Republicans can use support for an impeachment to equate to "the people's heroes," impeachment just isn't going to happen successfully. Ain't gonna play out.

Tim 1979,

You said it best.

Earl, whatever you've got, I want some.

I feel great! I watch heros everyday on TV. Each explosion is the sound of tyranny's walls coming down. If you follow it long enough, the rainbow ends in Iraq.

Posted by: Earl Wingate | July 9, 2007 10:53 AM

Earl, The war isn't just a TV show to make you feel great. People are dying by the thousands every month in Iraq. Real people, people who's lives are worth every bit as much as yours. It's truly sick that you derive pleasure from that.

Hillaryis44 --

I would save the reap what you've sown talk for the shreds of the Republican conservative movement, for something like Ted Haggard, who was in the White House once a week advising the President until, whoops...

Cindy Sheehan's reason for being in the discourse is she is upset over losing a son in a pre-emptive war that was not needed and now looms as one of the biggest blunders ever by a US President. Blunder is actually too kind of a word. She may be a little wacky, but she's not in ANY politician's inner circle. Get over it. If you've felt the pain over the war that she has I am truly sorry, but I kind of doubt you have.

Hillaryis44 --

I would save the reap what you've sown talk for the shreds of the Republican conservative movement, for something like Ted Haggard, who was in the White House once a week advising the President until, whoops...

Cindy Sheehan's reason for being in the discourse is she is upset over losing a son in a pre-emptive war that was not needed and now looms as one of the biggest blunders ever by a US President. Blunder is actually too kind of a word. She may be a little wacky, but she's not in ANY politician's inner circle. Get over it. If you've felt the pain over the war that she has I am truly sorry, but I kind of doubt you have.

RNC Bruce, Hllaryis44,

Dumping on the mother of a dead soldier, why you must be one of those compassionate conservatives we've heard about, but never seen.

Please share with your mother. I bet she'll be proud of you too.

It doesn't take much to get the Rabid Right to dis-respect the mother of a fallen soldier.

While supporting the Liar in Chief is one thing,your hatred for the Sheehan family is disgracefull.

"Doug Zook" and the rest of the unhinged love to dump on our soldiers. They also bare their fangs on the families of soldiers--except for Mother Sheehan. Why? What causes them to dis-respect the very soldiers who protect their own freedoms, including their freedom to deny reality?

The aptly-named "raving loon" and the rest of the unhinged are for victory in the war on terrorists. But they don't want the U.S. to be the victor.

I have all the respect in the world for Cindy Sheehan but she has to understand that the Republican's still have enough members in Congress to block any meaningful legislation being passed.

After this next election I fully expect the GOP to be dead and buried and then finally, the rest of the country will be able to move forward.

California deserves both of them. It wouldn't matter which idiot they voted in.

California deserves both of them. It wouldn't matter which idiot they voted in.

Posted by Bruce July 9, 2007 12:44 PM

Again Bruce, how is Iraq part of the overall "war on terror"?

"Terror" is a tactic not a country, when are you dittohead Republics going to figure this out?

"RNC Bruce,"

Why do you want more of our brave military personnel to die for the Iraqi Civil war?

(side note): Your use of quotes is interesting, but not correct.

"Doug Zook" and the rest of the unhinged love to dump on our soldiers.
Posted by: Bruce | July 9, 2007 12:44 PM

There ya go Bruce...get that unpatriotic rhetoric going. The only thing is, America aint buying it anymore. Dump on the soldiers ....what bull!

bill r:

I apologize if I am wrong in this, but maybe you are unaware of some of the details of Congress' lawmaking process. In particular, you blame Republicans for keeping the war going because "it is the REPUBLICAN PARTY that holds the votes to override the veto." The truth is that the Democrats could have already ended this war with their majority. They only had to vote against any supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war. They had the votes to defeat those bills.

The Democrats cannot swerve and miss a bullet, because it is clear they are equally responsible for continuing this war. This is not a case where the Democrats lack enough political power. It is a case of where the Democrats lack the political will. So, Mrs. Sheehan is perfectly correct in also blaming them for failing to exercise their power.

I think everyone should run for congress...it's our right...If more people are like Sheehan then the politicians would listen to us..Speak out America..

Much as I despise this Admin and the destruction it has caused, I'm now at the point where I oppose impeachment, even though grounds for impeachment are beyond ample.

Impeachment would give the Republicants a comparative fresh start on next year's elections. Instead of giving them this freebie, and thus the chance of retaining some power outside the judicial branch, let them campaign next year with a dimwitted albatross around their necks. The less power in the hands of the Republicants, the better the country's prospects to recover from this unprecedented disaster. Progressives need to take the long view on this issue.

blinkin,

I agree, we should let W and Cheney stick around until Jan 09.

Can you imagine how hard it's going to be for the Republic Party nominee for President to distance himself from the current inept Republican administation?

Do they let W. and Darth campaign for them or do they ignore them? either way is bad.

John W.,

I believe you are correct.

And although I suspect you're being a little modest here (I'd be willing to bet you didn't sleep through Constitutional law class), we laymen also know there are a lot of procedural ways of leaning on the Deserter in Chief to get our military out of the middle of the Iraqi Civil war.

California deserves both of them. It wouldn't matter which idiot they voted in.

Posted by: BD | July 9, 2007 1:18 PM

Last time I looked, California was part of the United States. How many blue states would you like to eliminate from America that don't support your blunder?

John W....I am aware of the "only" course available to the democrats is cutting funds. I don't really want to use the soldiers as pawns though, do you? I personally would hope that anyone who claims to love democracy, would realize that the majority of Americans don't wish to continue this anymore. I believe Bush had his shot and he blew it. He made so many mistakes yet I hear no one on the right seems to be very upset about that. I believe, however, that Mrs Sheehan can be upset with whomever she like, I stand by my statement though, I believe her anger is misguided.

Doug:

"Dumping on the mother of a dead soldier."

Exactly, how am I "dumping" on her? I think anyone who endorses Hugo Chavez's policies (such as shutting down opposition media outlets through government force) and appears in public with him is crazy. Period. Sheehan did that.

So no matter how much compassion I feel for the loss of her son (and I do) it does not disqualify her from being responsible for her political statements. The political left simply cannot use her as a human shield from criticism. She's simply not able to say anything she wants no matter how hard-core left wing, without responsibility because of what happened to her son.

Bruce and I aren't the only ones who feel this way, either. Just look at Bill R.'s posts. He says republicans are the only ones who ever paid any attention to Sheehan in the first place. There's a grain of truth to that but it's not the whole story. Far-right wing organizations used Sheehan in much the same way the far-left ones did. Except instead of holding her up as a patriot, they used her statements, and appearances with thugs like Chavez, to discredit the anti-war movmement.

You guys can't have it both ways. Sheehan is either an irrelevant tool of extremists whose anger at her former friends is misguided (as Bill R. has posted) or she is a patriot who's in this discourse to right a terrible wrong perpetrated by both parties (it's hard to argue the repubicans, who don't control congress, are solely responsible since January). You can't have supported her before, and not now simply because she's trained her guns on the Democrats.

bill r:

First, you are almost correct in suggesting that cutting funds is the only course open to Democrats. There is one further technique left untried. It is called “gridlock.” [This is not the technical term for it.] It is one form of the technique known as "log rolling." It works this way:

The party with the most votes in the House of Representatives (i.e. the Democrats) identifies and targets every piece of legislation supported or suggested by the President. Then, they make a concerted effort to see to it that all such bills get tabled, buried in committee or simply defeated in an up and down vote. Then they let it be known that the President can start having his way on his legislative agendum when he starts getting us out of Iraq. A more drastic form of this technique would be to simply vote down everything the Republicans want, or simply vote everything down. It really depends on how bad House Representatives want change. [The House is the best place for this technique because all bills for raising revenue must originate there.]

Second: No, I don't want to see soldiers used as pawns. But, perhaps, one should also resist the characterization of cutting funds as turning soldiers into pawns. If funds were cut today, the President would still have enough money to keep our armed forces in the field for some time before having to remove them from Iraq. Duh’bya has even said so before. So how does cutting funds make soldiers pawns?

It is also high time that people stop calling everything that doesn’t favor Duh’bya’s policies “unpatriotic.” A patriot is someone who loves his country and wants to do the best for it – sometimes “in spite of” the government. If “redeployment” is truly in our best interests, then redeploy we must. I still have reservations about cutting off all help and aid for Iraq completely, because we are the ones who started the trouble. It strikes me as immoral to charge in, trash the place, leave untold numbers of dead, injured and homeless amid a resurgence in internecine violence, and then have nothing more to say than “oops” as we dash for the exit.

Third, you haven't read enough of my posts if you think conservatives aren't spittin' mad over the Impostor in Chief. Of the three areas of conservatism (social, fiscal and institutional), Duh'bya can lay claim only to the first, and he hasn't done a good job at that one either. Conservatism is supposed to be the means, “Freedom” is still supposed to be the end product. Making the U.S. into a police state is a retrograde move even for conservatives. [And neo-cons aren’t conservative. Just ask Ron Paul.] I know an ever increasing number of conservative Republicans who are ready to bail on the GOP and vote independent or go with a new conservative party if one ever shows up. They know that Duh'bya doesn't represent them at all.

Hillaryis44,

I've got no beef with you or anybody else for going after Sheehan on her political statements. (Hugo Chavez can go play hide & go f himself.)

My beef is with "Mother." (A correct use of quotes RNC Bruce.)

As far as hiding behind her. As some moron in the White House said "Bring it on." (Another correct use of quotation marks RNC Bruce.)

Or, John W., said conservatives could simply stay at home during the next election, as huge numbers of them did in the last election.

Many conservatives have railed at the policies of this administration, chief among them Pat Buchanen. The difference between the party line voters of both major parties right now is the consistent conservative republicans have already shown that they're willing to stay at home and risk a few years in the wilderness because they're so disgusted with the leadership of their own party.

"You guys can't have it both ways. Sheehan is either an irrelevant tool of extremists whose anger at her former friends is misguided (as Bill R. has posted) or she is a patriot who's in this discourse to right a terrible wrong perpetrated by both parties (it's hard to argue the repubicans, who don't control congress, are solely responsible since January). "

Why Not? Why can she not be a patriot in who's in this discourse to right a terrible wrond, and still be misguided and the tool of people I disagree with?

One is a relates to her motivation, one deadl with the correctness of her position.

You can be a great patriot and still be completely wrong on a given position, can't you?

I, for example, believe those who support this war to be as wrong as wrong can be, but that doesn't mean they I think they aren't Patriots.

"I know an ever increasing number of conservative Republicans who are ready to bail on the GOP."

Posted John W July 9, 2007 3:41 PM

Hi John, aren't you getting tired of defending the dittohead Republicans yet?
Smart people in the GOP, like yourself, are chewed up by the sheeple in the party (John D, Bruce etc) and spit out.

Remember John, we are the "Big Tent Party" and you are always welcome.

From Sheehan's DailyKos diary:

"This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources."

She really resisted the spotlight for a long time, eh?

Tony, my point there was that she can't be completely in the right and out to right a terrible wrong, which is what the democrats held her up as until two months ago, and be irrelevant now that she's left the party and is railing against it and one of its leaders (Pelosi).

Patriot was a poor word choice. I agree that you can be a patriot and of either persuasion on the issue. But I still think the point is clear, you can't say Sheehan was important and relevant and should be paid attention to by the press when she was only protesting the President and other Republicans and that she's irrelevant now that she's giving ultimatums to Pelosi. I think politicians on both sides paid attention to her because the media reported her protests before the November elections and I think they're running with her ultimatum now for the same reason.

Don't you think one is as relevant as the other?

Yes, Hillaryis44,

You are right. I didn't vote for anyone in the '04 presidential election (although I voted on other offices and issues that year).

But why lay down and take all this nonsense from conservative pretenders? Why wander in the wilderness when there is no reason why conservatives can't kick out the dogs or make a new party?

Inquiring minds want to know.

John E:

Thank you. But, as you know, I don't defend neo-cons or dittoheads. They can all go over the side with the tea.

In fact, dittoheads are a dying breed. Not too long ago, Rush Limbaugh dissed Duh'bya for his criticizm of conservatives who opposed his immigration reform bill.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll join the Democratic party, but only if you expell Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha. A deal?

Cindy Sheehan should run. She won't win, but she should run.

Pelosi knows what she can and can't get away with. Keeping Bush in office is the best move.

Impeachment will only be a waste of time and would only result in the country blaming the Dems for not supporting the prez and the troops.

This war is a failure and everyone knows it and history will judge it so.

The only thing that can save Iraq now is a Democratic president who will split it into three parts.

Any attempt to keep in tact what is gerry-mandered won't work.

John W....I must admit, I do feel more discontent from the right within the last few weeks. I also wholeheartedly agree with your statement on the use of the word "unpatriotic". If you have read my posts from the past, you would know that upsets me. I served in Nam and to have people call me unpatriotic just plain stinks. My problem with using anything legislatively that would include the troops is, I don't really know how far Bush would go. We have sent in troops without proper armour already, I could see him doing the same all the while trying to place blame on democrats. I just don't want the troops to be put in harms way for political posturing. Thank you for actually discussing this, it is a breath of fresh air from the rants that usually fill the swamp.

"Tony, my point there was that she can't be completely in the right and out to right a terrible wrong, which is what the democrats held her up as until two months ago, and be irrelevant now that she's left the party and is railing against it and one of its leaders (Pelosi). "

Well, first off, I don't know of anyone ever saying she was "completely right".

Secondly, your position assumes that Cindy Sheehan has remained unchanged an that it is only attitudes about her that has changed. That is clearly unfounded.

Cindy's positions have changed. Her simple focus on getting an explaination of what her son died for, over time expanded into other, more problematic areas, her appeances with Chavez being a good example. As those changes happened, naturally how she was viewed changed as well. More mainstream Democrats became more wary and more distant from her, leading to the current split.

The world isn't devided into unchanging people who are wholly good or wholly bad, Hillary 44. It is much more complicated, and much less stable than that.

The Loon's Chief Spokesperson, Cindy Sheehan, speaks again! I thought she was retiring? Well I guess she couldn't take being out of the media's spotlight any longer. And her son, Casey, who re-upped while the war was in progress, just continues to be embarrassed by mom, just as the rest of the family is embarrassed.

John D.,

You have got a crap load of nerve presupposing what Casey Sheehan would have had to say about his mother, much less her family.

You contempable swine.

I can't say I agree with that assessment, Tony, and I certainly don't think Sheehan would.

By putting this challenge to Pelosi she's holding the speaker of the house to the same standard she's held the president. She's ALWAYS wanted Bush impeached and said so several times before the 06' electiond. I agree that she's added a bunch of issues to her cause (like appearing with Hugo) but calling for Bush's impeachment is nothing new to her. And there was a time on the campaign trail when Pelosi at least paid lip service to the idea.

Sheehan's challenge comes as a low 21% of the American people approve of the job this congress is doing. Clearly, Sheehan isn't the only one who feels she's been bait and switched by this congress.

And her son, Casey, who re-upped while the war was in progress, just continues to be embarrassed by mom, just as the rest of the family is embarrassed.

Posted by: John D | July 9, 2007 6:53 PM

Nice post John...I didn't know you were so close to the family.

No, John D. The Sheehan family is not embarrassed as you project. They are grieving, as are so many other families here AND in Iraq. Get a clue...and a heart.

Why all the drama about Sheehan meeting Chavez? Don't think Chavez has the blood on his hands that Bush does. She's met with leaders all over the world. Bush goes home and cuts brush while soldiers die...

I think one of the problems we all have in dealing with Cindy Sheehan is that none of us want to sound like Ann Coulter when we discuss her. So we lay off of her and make her "untouchable" because this war has profoundly harmed her.

Okay, fine. Treat her with kid gloves. And then keep two thing in mind:

1. As a citizen, she has no greater right to have her say than the rest of us; and,

2. Her status as a grieving parent doesn't make her ideas immune from criticism.

Remember, this is our country too, and we should be able to respectfully disagree with her without being accused of being mean or heartless. The wrong-headed thinking that makes her critics “heartless” is the same kind of thinking that makes some view Duh’bya’s critics as "unpatriotic." We’ll never get to the truth until we can un-couple the dialogue from the emotional hedges we build up around certain people.

As for Cindy Sheehan, she has a perfect right to believe anything she chooses. I have the same right to totally disagree with her approach. I wish her luck running against Nancy Pelosi; there are enough anti-war types in San Francisco to help her give Pelosi a run for her money. I still believe that, regardless of who wins, San Francisco will have an ignorant and largely incompetent representative.

John W, 'moderate' Repubs are just as responsible for the past 7 years of greed, graft, corruption, etc... as Cheney and his criminal gang. You folks have not had the guts to stick up for yourselves while your 'party' drives the country over the brink. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson are the face of the Repug. party. Bruce, John D, and Mahalo are more representative of the Repug. party than you.

There are 49 votes to start ending the occupation in Iraq. Last time I counted, that is less than 51. Until Repug. senators start voting with their Democratic brethren, they are chosing party over the public. If you wish to defend that, be my guest, but don't lay the onus of this 'just as much the fault of the Dems as the Reps.' It most certainly is not.

Rubber stamp Republican is not a compliment.

Simple, DD, Chavez is a tin hat dictator who uses the machinery of his government to stifle opposition and shut down opposition voices. Last I checked, the Bush administration has never shut down a television station for criticizing him. That makes all the difference in the world. Being an opponent of free expression is being an opponent of democracy, plain and simple.
Do husbands that support what their wives are doing divorce them? You make the call on Sheehan.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/08/husband_of_peace_mom_files_for_divorce_-_yahoo_news/

Tony,

Sheehan has said she wanted Bush impeached (and a quick check of her reasons for impeachment wouldn't pass muster with anyone who has studied constitutional law) WAY before the 2006 elections. And when she was campaigning Pelosi at least paid lip service (lib service) to the idea. On that position Sheehan has not changed at all. The only one who has is Pelosi.

Maybe that's why only around 20% of Americans approve of the job this congress is doing. You have to admit a lot of promises have been broken, and not just ones made to the radical left, like ethics reform, stopping earmarks, etc.

Sheehan has said she wanted Bush impeached (and a quick check of her reasons for impeachment wouldn't pass muster with anyone who has studied constitutional law) WAY before the 2006 elections.

-------

HI44:

Having "studied constitutional law" myself, I can say with a good deal of confidence that intentionally misleading the public into an unnecessary war would constitute a "misdemeanor" within the meaning of the Constitution. Our Dear President, of floral wind and ostentatious prayer, knew that the WMD intelligence was a good bit more ambiguous than he and his co-conspirators portrayed it to be. He garnered support for the war by concealing these ambiguities, i.e., he withheld the truth in order to deceive. This may indeed be a "high crime," and it very certainly is a "misdemeanor" within the meaning of the Constitution, i.e., a defalcation, as distinguished from the present-day definition of "misdemeanor," which narrowly means a crime punishable by less than a year in prison.

While you might argue that Dear Leader's deceipt about WMD, with the hundreds of thousands of deaths that foreseeably resulted from the deceipt, is not nearly so evil as parsing words over a private sexual affair that harmed no one but the liar's spouse and child, constitutional scholars other than you would be on reasonable ground to disagree, donchaspose?

GOOD FOR CINDY SHEEHAN!
Once again, we are reminded that anyone in this country can exercise his or her rights to run for office. Senator Patty Murray ran for office in Washington State when a congressman called her 'just a mom in tennis shoes!' Maybe the republicons do 'control' the vote, but THIS LADY IS WILLING TO 'TRY'..
...Cindy Sheehan is doing what most fat lazy Americans don't do--getting up and actually DOING something other than jaw flapping! Win, lose or draw..I WISH HER ALL GOOD FORTUNE!

weinerdog43:

I wasn't talking about Republicans; I was talking about conservatives. Many conservatives are Republicans, but, by far, not all Republicans are conservatives any more. I don't even know how to classify some of them. This is why many conservatives in the Republican party are considering a jump as I previously described. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest do not represent me or many other conservatives I know. The former are Republican Party loyalists, and are often entirely detached from conservative ideals. I did not vote for Duh’bya and Cheney in ’04 because of their first term performance. So, please don’t lump all conservatives in with “main stream” or even “moderate” Republicans like you have.

Second, to the extent you suggest that a vote in the Senate is at all necessary to stop the war in Iraq, you are gravely mistaken. De-funding the war could happen simply by having the Democrats in the House of Representatives vote against any further funding. All bills for raising revenue – like the Iraq funding bills – must originate in the House of Representatives. (See U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 7.) Even if the Senate passes amendments to spending bills, the House of Representatives must still vote to concur. (Ibid.) Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to fund everything the President wants. The President only gets to “recommend” legislation; not demand it. (Id. Art. II, Sec. 3.)

So, if the Democrats refused to take any steps toward submitting a funding bill, the House Republicans would then be required to do so. But Republicans don't have the votes to get such a bill out of the House without the support of Democrats. When the bill comes up for any vote, all the Democrats have to do is vote against it. If they did, their majority would insure the bill dies there. The same is true if the Senate erroneously started a spending bill, because the House Democrats could still vote it down or kill it with a “blue slip” resolution. There would then be no need for a veto override, much less a positive vote to de-fund the war by either the House or Senate.

The House Democrats only have to repeat the process as many times as it takes to force the President to withdraw the military from Iraq. In the meantime, those 49 Senators, and their votes, can take a vacation. Since the Democrats could have done this already, the continuation of the war most certainly is just as much their fault as anyone else’s. Don’t kid yourself.

a blinkin:

That's an interesting theory you have about the basis for impeaching Duh'bya for lying. I hesitate to concur because I don't know what statute Duh'bya violated by lying to the American Public. Do you?

Don't forget that the federal government has no common law crimes because the United States is, itself, a creature of statute. Nothing is a crime unless it is denounced, prior in time, by a written and public statute. Thus, until you can point to book and page to prove his conduct violates a specific statute, that basis for impeachment doesn't work.

What's amazing to me is that all those who seek Duh'bya's impeachment don't look at the one painfully obvious basis staring us in the face. It could well be that his blanket authorization to dispense with the FISA warrant requirements for domestic wiretaps could easily provide a basis for impeachment. The FISA law, itself, makes a willful violation of its terms a federal, statutory crime. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2(a) would make the President guilty of any completed violation of the FISA crime committed by others if he aided, abetted, counseled, commanded induced or procured its commission. That would more than likely qualify as a "high crime" or misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4. Write your congressman or congresswoman to pursue that basis if you really want to get him. But, good luck. There aren’t enough votes in the Senate to convict him. [Sigh.]

A woman gives up her son and decides to fight against the senseless waste of it all, and she gets called a crazy, leftist, nutso. Don't be delusional, this war belongs to each and every one of us. And the ramifications of it are on the horizon. I am taking my family back to Europe, my forefathers should have never left. The American people are ignorant, mean and unforgiving, this blog shows the face of it. I am sorry to be an American. I am going back home, where my values still exist.

And the liberal DailyKos has just banned Cindy from their website.

Cindy, you gotta watch who you jump in bed with.