Cindy Sheehan, Re-revisited

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post saying Cindy Sheehan would probably not do very well against Nancy Pelosi, and therefore I was sorry she had decided to run. I said she was more valuable to the antiwar movement as an activist. I said leftists waste a lot of time on futile electoral contests, and cited examples of such contests. These remarks, which were couched in terms of deepest respect for Cindy Sheehan, have evoked much bile and wrath in this blog's comment section and elsewhere in the blogosphere. So much fun are commenters having discussing what a traitor and reactionary I am, few seem to have noticed that, in a followup, I wrote that my comments were actually as much about electoral protest politics in general as about this particular race and "if Cindy Sheehan wants to make an anti-war gesture, running against Nancy Pelosi is one way to do it, so good luck to her."

She's going to need it. Her outraged and self-righteous response to my mild and polite posts make me wonder how she will withstand the rigors of political campaigning. Because I express doubt that she will make much impression on the ballot box, and think that likelihood and its implications are worth discussing frankly, Sheehan accuses me of "stridently" (nice --does anyone EVER use that word for a man?) defending the Democratic Party's "complicity" in the war and of not caring about the sufferings of Iraqis the way she does.

I'm sorry, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Even if I was the reprehensible character she claims -- yellowdog Dem indifferent to the horrors of war, willing to say anything to keep Nancy Pelosi in power -- I could still be right about Sheehan's own electoral prospects and about whether such runs are the best use of the antiwar/progressive movements energies. Shouldn't a serious candidate be trying to show the hundreds of thousands of people who visit this website that I am wrong? Sheehan doesn't address any of the points I raise, or that Gary Younge raises in his excellent column on the same issues. All she does is malign my motives and my personality, attack The Nation for supposedly exploiting her fame, and accuse anyone who questions her judgment of supporting the war.

If a lot of people who cheered you last year think you're making a mistake this year, there may be something to it. I'm just saying.

Comments (240)

1. You should quote her, Ms Pollitt....that's what makes it hit home with the self-righteouness-

   "Maybe Katha Pollitt et al. should go to the Middle East and view the carnage that this Administration has caused with the complicity of the Democratic Party, which she so stridently defends."

   As if Cindy (and her followers) are the ONLY ones who realize this and that if you don't support Cindy (the inklings of a little cult of personality complex?), you OBVIOUSLY are "complicit" in the Dems not stopping the war.

   That letter alone shows why Ms Sheehan will NOT achieve public office....too many smart people in the 8th District of California.

   Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 7:20pm

2. Other than attract a lot of attention for the anti-war movement, an impressive effort nonetheless, what else has she done? She's talented as an activist and a motivator for change, but how will that translate into the duties of Speaker of the House? Maybe she should start a little smaller, gain a little more leadership experience, make a name for herself in a few other ways, and then pull a stunt like the one she's attempting. It's just a little grandiose to take on the speaker of the house once your 15 minutes is about up.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 08/30/2007 @ 7:20pm

3. Katha, you were right from the beginning. There are many other ways for Ms. Sheehan to help the cause, but I don't think challenging Nancy Pelosi is the best way to do it.

   Posted by pizzmoe at 08/30/2007 @ 7:44pm

4. Posted by PIZZMOE 08/30/2007 @ 7:44pm

   Are you from Pizzmoe beach, or do you pizzmoe cuz you drink moe?

   Posted by MATTMAN at 08/30/2007 @ 7:47pm

5. It's just a little grandiose to take on the speaker of the house once your 15 minutes is about up.----Posted by MATTMAN 08/30/2007 @ 7:20pm

   I said that on the 2nd "Sheehan/Pelosi" thread, MATT. Why doesn't Cindy run against a "Blue Dog" (conservative Dem) in California, where she can win the seat and move the party politics?

   The answer...it's not "showy" enough...I said for her followers, not I see it applies to the self-absorbed Ms Sheehan as well.

   As with a lot of the Blogosphere, Ms Sheehan has gotten pulled to an Extreme Left (a Left that now considers "The Nation" and Ms Pollitt to be "complicit" or "supportive" of the continuation of the war in Iraq).

   She (Cindy) is proving the Right right about their assessment of her and leaving the mainstream Dems and even some of the liberal base behind.

   Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 8:35pm

6. Some long, beside the point rambling above, although it was well intended, I'm sure. But it's part of a very different discussion.

   I think Ms. Pollit is dead on. The problem with with Cindy Sheehan running for Senate, strong as she is, is that she is a one-tune Jill. Her whole activism springs from personal loss, and it's all about Iraq. If Cindy is serious about running for office, she better turn quickly from being the Bush banshee, and demonstrate that she has some awareness or concern about social issues, economic issues, and racial issues not stemming from Iraq, but from within our own country. We can all agree that Iraq is killing our children and killing our economy. And prescient beings tried to stop this hideous calamity well before Bush finally ignored the UN.

   The problem with Cindy Sheehan is that she was a late-comer to reality, and even in her profound grief and latent social activism, I am unconvinced that she can think big enough to embrace all the subject areas that would be on her plate as Senator. And I also doubt she has the political acuity to influence the debate on her ONE BASIC TUNE inside the Senate chambers.

   As a titular figurehead, Cindy Sheehan will be more successful, always, working from the outside in.That is where she can be most effective, and where we need her most.

   Posted by carrion at 08/30/2007 @ 8:41pm

7. "Posted by RLAWRENCE 08/30/2007 @ 8:03pm"

   Sorry RL, but who cares?

   Posted by ACook at 08/30/2007 @ 8:42pm

8. Some long, beside the point rambling above, although it was well intended, I'm sure. But it's part of a very different discussion.

   I think Ms. Pollitt is dead on. The problem with with Cindy Sheehan running for Senate, strong as she is, is that she is a one-tune Jill. Her whole activism springs from personal loss, and it's all about Iraq. If Cindy is serious about running for office, she better turn quickly from being the Bush banshee, and demonstrate that she has some awareness or concern about social issues, economic issues, and racial issues not stemming from Iraq, but from within our own country. We can all agree that Iraq is killing our children and killing our economy. And prescient beings tried to stop this hideous calamity well before Bush finally ignored the UN.

   The problem with Cindy Sheehan is that she was a late-comer to reality, and even in her profound grief and latent social activism, I am unconvinced that she can think big enough to embrace all the subject areas that would be on her plate as Senator. And I also doubt she has the political acuity to influence the debate on her ONE BASIC TUNE inside the Senate chambers.

   As a titular figurehead, Cindy Sheehan will be more successful, always, working from the outside in.That is where she can be most effective, and where we need her most.

   Posted by carrion at 08/30/2007 @ 8:50pm

9. "As a titular figurehead, Cindy Sheehan will be more successful, always, working from the outside in. That is where she can be most effective, and where we need her most."

   Posted by CARRION 08/30/2007 @ 8:41pm

   Yeah, right!!! She left Crawford quaken' in their boots.

   Posted by ACook at 08/30/2007 @ 8:53pm

10. Dear commenters, I'm very glad you are interested in what I write and want to talk about it. But please keep it clean and relevant. No bathroom humor, no long rants about something else etc. And please be respectful of each other, too.

    Posted by Katha Pollitt at 08/30/2007 @ 8:56pm

11. I too think that Cindy's run agains Pelosi is a waste of time and I am dissapointed she is taking this route. I took her on her word that she was burnt out and not happy about how the anti-war celebrities were quibling and would pick and choose what event etc to attend. She said she needed to get back in touch with her family and something to the effect of having some time for herself. This was all very understandable. Then a very short time after stepping out of the lime light, she steps right back in. What happened to this family time? Is she just an attention whore, who needed a new vehicle to get back in the spotlight? This is the question I am asking myself now. If she beat Pelosi she would be a first term house member with little or no power. What really is she trying to achieve?

    Posted by mrsanfran at 08/30/2007 @ 9:06pm

12. RL,

    Leahy maybe a lot of things, but brilliant ain't one of them and doesn't spring to mind of many people...

    He is one of the most biased, boring clowns in the Senate...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/30/2007 @ 9:14pm

13. "... These remarks, which were couched in terms of deepest respect for Cindy Sheehan, have evoked much bile and wrath in this blog's comment section and elsewhere in the blogosphere. So much fun are commenters having discussing what a traitor and reactionary I am,..."

    Bile and wrath are what you will receive from the hard lefty loons here should you disagree with ANYTHING they see as truth....no matter which end of the spectrum you represent...that has always been the "wrap" on the hard left...

    and it is why they are not taken seriously by the dem party or the rest of the country..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/30/2007 @ 9:17pm

14. I'm not sure if I agree with your original argument about Sheehan's proposed run against Pelosi, but I definitely agree that Sheehan's response to your post was way off base. I've been pretty wary of Sheehan for some time now, and her letter filled with ad hominem attacks against The Nation definitely helped solidify this feeling. Since when did arguing about tactics for ending the occupation make someone a 'supporter' of Pelosi?

    One minor quibble, though. A quick Google search is sufficient to answer your rhetorical question about the term 'stridently' in the affirmative.

    Posted by seabrook at 08/30/2007 @ 9:41pm

15. "Dear commenters, I'm very glad you are interested in what I write and want to talk about it. But please keep it clean and relevant. No bathroom humor, no long rants about something else etc. And please be respectful of each other, too.

    Posted by KATHA POLLITT 08/30/2007 @ 8:56pm

    Katha, what ever you do....please, promise me you won't be tempted to respond to Rese and Plunger. Those two are Kamakazie bloggers. They fly in, blow up a perfectly good thread and leave chaos in their wake....

    Posted by ACook at 08/30/2007 @ 9:43pm

16. I'm seriously waiting for those in the Sheehan Camp to put in an appearance and TRY to explain that letter and its attacks on "The Nation" and Ms Pollitt....

    and NOT use the lame "Cindy's a grieving mom and sometimes lets her emotions and concern about ending this war get away from her"...because that's not what I saw in it. I saw somebody who has rapidly assumed the holier-than-thou status of a egomaniac on a crusade, and all who stand in her way (even old friends and allies) are "heathens".

    Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 10:19pm

17. The Nation is giving far too much attention to Sheehan. First she says she's quitting the antiwar movement in disillusionment. Then she runs for the House. Now she writes this stupid response to a mild critique of her electioneering. Give it up, leftist America! Why do you always look for some big hero or heroine to bail you out? Sheehan is just an ordinary person who got into something way too deep. It's also very clear she just craves the attention. She's going to lose big in California and then blame it on "BushCo." The sooner she's gone from American politics the better off we'll be.

    Posted by nationwatch at 08/30/2007 @ 10:52pm

18. As a practicing Critical Thinker I'm beginning to suspect Cindy Sheehan may well be a Bush plant, a shill, a quisling sent to sow not discussion, but confusion and dissent among us Dems.

    Think about it. After all the brouhaha she simply leaves Crawford behind, son Casey's headstone bears Van Halen, Superman Eagel Scouts WWF "insignia", she doesn't really stay in touch with Chavez much, no more walking with Jesse Jackson. Any true Dem would revel in such good company, to grow and spread the word through and with them.

    Posted by Huh at 08/30/2007 @ 11:15pm

19. This is to Cindy from one who is against everything she stands for, but defends your right to do what you feel is right..

    Many of us on the right think you are a pawn and are getting your 15 minutes and too much more of fame, and now you are coming off as a loon. Sorry, but you look like a silly desparate media stooge. And we feel you do your son and his service a dishonor, but that is our problem, not yours..

    Many of us on the right felt your loss and grieved with you, valued your sons gift to us...and then your own history came into play, and play is the word. Apparently your son supported what he was doing,enouigh to re elist if the reports are correct. You gave up his custody and have done this before, you spent very little time with him, apparently he was raised by his father. The internet, the source of most knowledge of "facts" on the blog, have pictures of a grave yard with all having head stones, except one...Caseys..the prayer sessions in the ditch near Crawford with ol' Jesse gave the impression of a mass of people with you...until the cameras back away and it is you, ol' Jesse and the entire crowd are...reporters...all this smacks of fraud.

    If I am wrong in my "facts", so be it..but the image is real and it comes from you.

    This has led to many of us to question your motives and wonder who is paying for your "protests" around the country...and now this run to unseat Nancy...a publicity stunt at best. Truth be known..SF is the only area of the nation where you could get more than 12 votes.

    We feel if you were on the up and up your own family would have joined and supported you in your quest, not divorced themselves from you very publicly and every action you have taken. They, too, are hurt by the lost of Casey.

    None of my thoughts take away the pain of your loss nor my sympathy for you in that loss....it is just that you do not seem to be the symbol that the country needs to come together in order to make some sort of unified statement..instead you receive the lauds of a complete fool and a cultish clown like Frank..who at this point can only be pitied...as he represents to us the supporters you have arounnd you.

    Go home, morn your son and his loss, regain your dignity...write a book, start a support group, call in the markers of your finacial supporters...but leave the politics to those who are corrupt enough to master it(Hillary), are capable to use politics to change how our society views of itself(Reagan), and smart enough to know they can manage only a part of it(Kennedy).

    And find some peace.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/30/2007 @ 11:22pm

20. Its about Cindy getting her way, now, period. Thats a typical Republican trait, is it not?

    Posted by Huh at 08/30/2007 @ 11:22pm

21. I'm going to dissent here. Sheehan is right, and the Nation is wrong. The Democrats are spineless, and are in no way responsive to public opinion about the war. It's no use complaining about the radical left, because they have been much more accurate in their understanding of what is happening and has happened in the past few years than the so-called "moderate" left. Moderates tend to be "support the flavour of the month view" people with no intellectual integrity or daring. Change for the better will only come when people start to realize that the radical "crazy" left are correct about a great many things. For example, while I don't agree with many things he says, Noam Chomsky is a much more relevant read than anything the "respectable" left has to say these days. Honestly, you're all in denial. Things have not been working with American democracy for a very long time now, and its no use claiming that the next election will fix it all, since it is a systemic problem. How can you expect the present system to do anything, when it has continually failed to establish public health care, even though this is cheaper than the current system and would benefit the vast majority of Americans? How can you expect war policy to undergo any meaningful change when the warmakers and war profiteers are embedded in the current setup? Expecting the current Democrats to engage in anything more than wrist slapping is a joke. Voting for them is voting for a policy of removing half a cancerous tumour.

    I doubt that Cindy Sheehan would win the election, but she may well get enough votes to put a scare into Pelosi. That in itself would be worth the effort.

    Posted by Agathon at 08/30/2007 @ 11:26pm

22. Posted by MASK 08/30/2007 @ 7:20pm | ignore this person

    Rather brain-dead response MASK. Anyone who would vote for Impeachment-is-off-the-Table Pelosi has the I.Q. of a plastic bag with cut hair and toenails in it.

    Cindy Sheehan has every right to run for public office if she wishes and the voters of that district will decide whom they will select for that House Seat. My sincere hope is that Nancy Impeachment is Off The Table Pelosi is sent home packing for good................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 11:37pm

23. Only now did the Nation's propaganda machine realize Cindy Shehaan as an opportunist, an woman's who uses her son's death as a steppngstone to an office for herself. Too demagogue for too long! If you want to be a genuine liberal, just follow the Europeans. Read this.

    ------------

    Europeans back Hillary Clinton for US president: poll Wed Aug 29

    MONTREAL (AFP) - More than four in 10 French and Germans would like to see Democratic candidate and former first lady Hillary Clinton elected US president in 2008, a survey by a Canadian pollster showed on Wednesday.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 08/30/2007 @ 11:39pm

24. "Europeans back Hillary Clinton for US president: poll Wed Aug 29 "

    And this matters to anyone because...?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/31/2007 @ 12:20am

25. I need to conceed that Reps are much more disciplined than Dems. They can gather around even a Guliani (which is not a typical conservative by any means) and we Dems support a hundred different ideas. (That also tells that we are much more original thinkers by the way).

    All my sympathy is with Ms Sheehan. But she needs to understand that only discipline and union will make us reach the final goal of retiring from Iraq. But she's completely right in the need to be bolder and adopt much more extreme and forceful positions. It is not about extremism as someone said, but about not playing the Rep game of "if you are patriot you shall not 'abandon' the troops".

    I agree with Ms Pollitt that Ms Sheehan is much more valuable as an activist. Some bold ideas, a two day general protest in the state of California, a walk of a million over Washington D.C., erc I hereby propose her as a candidate for the Peace Nobel Prize, for her stubborn but brave struggle.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/31/2007 @ 02:02am

26. Posted by AGATHON 08/30/2007 @ 11:26pm | ignore this person

    I agree, and dissent is good, especially in times like these.

    Posted by POSEIDON 08/30/2007 @ 11:37pm | ignore this person

    I think many are new to the critical thinking club, are really in not a pre 911, but a pre neo-con ascendant group think, using yesterdays, failed, political logic for a geometry that no longer exists, if it ever did. A poll was mentioned that I believe had a two thirds pro Cindy Sheehan differential. Has anyone else at least talked to someone who lives in the district concerned? I have, and they are pissed. What basis other than anecdotal, it happened such a way yesterday "logic," do the nay-sayers have, that the voters in a very much left leaning district wont vote the same way as did those here at the nation?

    Also there is something else that bugs me a tad this.

    Same, so very much the, sympathetic sentiment, though by a different writer, from the other, major progressive site on the net. Ms Sheehan's support, obviously, does not rise overly much, does not reach too deeply into the atmosphere, beyond the perhaps "great unwashed," grassroots, does it? I think it key ...

    So, since Katha asked us to be nice I wont say STFU till someone gets some quantified demographic data. And besides, even if I did it would only beg a question, or perhaps a reality. An on the ground reality, at that ... In that a shift has happened that has either a) Scared the shit out of the powers that be, of the right and of the left. Or the shift is something that has already passed such powers by, as oft happens ... And they are become like the victims of a tsunami, on an otherwise sunny day. See, but that's the thing, they don't have, as the poll here at the nation showed, a sunny day, to take their minds off, or away, from the rising wave, do they? Three to one, goes past the Ides of March, beyond mere signs and portents all the way up to the writing on the wall. The rising surf finds Pelosi already ankle deep, and furthest from the shore. Playing a game best reserved for long ago, and sunny days. A game not be played now, most surely not under storm clouds. A first already too late victim.

    All we have to do is hold ... no wishful thinking accepted, dysfunctional emotions projected (on the other hand, if some of those who have impugned Cindy's character belong to the psychic friends club please let us know, else ...) or prophecies needed, as the only non anecdotal extant data the, Nation poll, shows the people are on their own and Cindy's side.

    So, the poll is the first clue. This should have been the second;

    Kudos Ms Pollitt for well reasoned commentary. We may be 180 apart on Iraq and the other major issues in this country, but this conservative salutes you for your reasoned thoughts.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/30/2007 @ 10:22pm | ignore this person

    ...

    Posted by V at 08/31/2007 @ 03:43am

27. Here we have another clash between the nutroots and the liberal establishment, manic keyboard insurgents vs (somewhat complacent) elites. Sheehan's threat to run against Pelosi does seem to be folly except that it may well help nudge the Speaker away from de facto Blue Dog status and convince her to contemplate pursuing more progressive goals such as ending the madness in Iraq.

    Posted by feinfein at 08/31/2007 @ 04:16am

28. Posted by FEINFEIN 08/31/2007 @ 04:16am | ignore this person

    "Sheehan's threat to run against Pelosi does seem to be folly," and lol, "nudge" ...

    This is what I meant, maybe it happened whist I was between lives. There are two polls, the informal one I conduct every other day or so, of the people in the eighth district, and the one done here at the Nation. And if one counts the responses of the link I posted and Katha's two blogs, then there is data wherever the subject has come up that shows the public, is for all intents and purposes, overwhelmingly pro Cindy in Sheehan vs Pelosi.

    So where do you and those like you get your, to the contrary, data from? I ask, although, again, I think it will probably turn out to be merely statistical, or historical-anecdotal. And therefore not representative of a dynamic, that shows, or rather reveals itself over and over again thoughts words and deeds of what is now become the majority of Americans ...

    Also nutroots, manic keyboard insurgents?

    I see passion, but it is coherent and focused, it hardly approaches mania. Not everything transfers through the written word, perhaps there is irony, an attempt at wit or humour, a taking of oneself lightly? And not the seemingly lukewarm, wholly specious deprecation one gets at first read. I somewhat cynically doubt it, though, one must always be open to the possibility.

    At least you know that "nudging" Pelosi away from, I agree, blue dog status, is a good thing. No matter the (if without irony, ergo, not inclusive of yourself, then, piss-poor) way you eventually got around to expressing it. Though with your sentiments in reference to the value of expression in the medium, taken at face value, one wonders wonder why you would bother to do so, lest you be included, as well.

    Posted by V at 08/31/2007 @ 07:16am

29. I read Sheehan's response. It is self-centered, self-righteous and dogmatic. At no point does she even attempt to address any of the points made against her decision to run for Congress. She brands anyone who disagrees with her as complicit in the Iraq War.

    In other words, she will fit right in in the House.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/31/2007 @ 07:46am

30. Europeans back Hillary Clinton for US president: poll Wed Aug 29

    MONTREAL (AFP) - More than four in 10 French and Germans would like to see Democratic candidate and former first lady Hillary Clinton elected US president in 2008, a survey by a Canadian pollster showed on Wednesday.

    Doesn't this imply that more than 5 in 10 don't support Clinton? Couldn't the headline just have easily read "Europeans Not Convinced Hillary's The One" ???

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/31/2007 @ 07:49am

31. Ms. Pollitt's earlier question of the need or value of the impeachment of Bush/Cheney, like so many of the questions facing our nation, was eloquently answered many years ago by President Madison, to wit: "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and the avoided the consequences by denying the principle." – James Madison, 1785

    It is not a question of whether we may secure an impeachment of Bush/Cheney, rather, it is the sending of a forceful message to those who follow them in our highest offices - that we will not accept despotic conduct - and we will seek to indict post-term if necessary. Ms. Sheehan is correct and courageous!

    Speaker Pelosi obviously lacks good judgement in her decisions

    Posted by Remmo at 08/31/2007 @ 08:27am

32. I don't think there is anything wrong with Sheehan challenging Pelosi. Pelosi is either playing politics by saying she's taking impeachment off the table, or just trying to appear to distance herself from impeachment proceedings just in case they really happen and she ends up becoming president for a brief period.

    Last I checked, this was supposed to be a free nation, and if Cindy Sheehan can muster up the support to remove Pelosi, than more power to her. Threatening the powers that be is a healthy thing, not a bad one. That is what keeps these people honest.

    Otherwise, we end up with...well, situations like W where he feels like he can pretty much do whatever the hell he damn well feels like because he's the president. It doesn't matter to him one way or the other what the rest of the country thinks, as long as his powerful friends are happy, that's all that counts.

    Hopefully Pelosi gets the message and starts putting Cheney and W's feet to the fire.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/31/2007 @ 08:48am

33. Posted by POSEIDON 08/30/2007 @ 11:37pm

    Nobody, including Ms Pollitt nor me, said Cindy CAN'T run. She said she shouldn't run, or she should run against a Blue Dog Democrat. I originally said that as well.

    But what THIS thread is discussing is that snotty, self-righteous "You're either with me or against me" (sound familiar?) tone in the letter Ms Sheehan sent to "The Nation" and the attack on Katha Pollitt as some "Iraq war enabler" because she DARED question Saint Cindy.

    The fact that some of the sane Left and liberals here are seeing that is another indicator that Ms Sheehan's bid for election in the 8th California is doomed to failure. They recognize that it's an exercise in self-aggrandizement, if not self-promotion.

    Like others have asked....just a few months ago, Cindy said she was stepping down from the anti-war movement because the publicity and spotlight had taken its toll on her. NOW she's back to "send a message" to Nancy Pelosi?!!?!?

    Sounds like some of her "advisors" took her aside and (maybe for themselves, maybe Cindy too) decided that they DIDN'T LIKE leaving the spotlight.

    BTW, as noted on the other threads, Pelosi will get NO "message". Sheehan can pick up 10-15-20% of the vote in 2008...but Pelosi will still win by 60% and when 2010 rolls around (and both Iraq and impeachment are gone), Pelosi will be back to her 80% victories of the past. The message?..."Cindy Sheehan and a HANDFUL of followers BOTHERED Nancy once.....ONCE!" (old "Johnny Dangerously" line...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 09:24am

34. I believe in doing this, The Nation is also supporting the status quo of continuing war, death and the destruction of our middle class and way of life here in America.

    - Cindy Sheehan

    Need Cindy Sheehan say more???? I better watch what I say. If I were to say, call her a name. RESIGN, CINDY.

    RESIGN, from being the face of disgrace.

    Cindy Sheehan you former Republican, who voted for Bush, encouraged your son to go and fight, and only belatedly listened to the Liberals.

    Cindy Sheehan, last time someone on a message board called you a name, you lied, you claimed it was a DNC official who called you that name. The media was happy not to question your implication that it was a DNC official who called you an attention whore on a message board. It was not a DNC official. You also lied, claiming you were going to disappear.

    Cindy Sheehan you said yourself that you used to be a Republican who voted for Bush. Maybe you lied.

    RESIGN AS THE FACE OF DISGRACE. I am offended, calling The Nation magazine a supporter of this war. WHAT THE HELL GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO LIE.

    Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 10:13am

35. Former Republican. Voted for Bush. Encouraged her son to enlist.

    Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 10:18am

36. V, I disagree that Pelosi needs to be "nudged away from Blue-Dog". Pelosi is not a Blue Dog. Here is a link to the list of actual Blue-Dogs, and Pelosi is not even close.

    http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html

    Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 10:25am

37. Posted by ZERO 08/31/2007 @ 10:50am

    Again, ZERO and feminism...really starting to think "V" isn't the only LaRoucher we have here!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 11:20am

38. strident....pretty much means a loud high pitched shrill grating sound. i'll have to agree with katha.

    as kvh pointed out in her response to cindy, the nation's staff has many varied and oftentimes conflicting opinions. the magazine is not pelosi's pr machine. that is an idiotic comment.

    i'm with conshame on this. she spent her life as a disgusting republican. various things she has said and done show her to be slow, unstable, emotionally insecure and vulnerable to any con that comes along....in other words she is still a thinly veiled republican.

    Posted by loveloki at 08/31/2007 @ 11:25am

39. To borrow from Will Ferell's impersonation of Bush, "Legislatin's hard." They do a lot of scut work, much of it lawyerly, that the Grover Norquists of the world mock ("It's just lawyers up there spending our money!"). Too much undifferentiated public anger at "politicians" enables the GOP to fill government with people like Tom Delay or George Bush who bring "business principles" (cronyism, graft, lack of public-mindedness) to government), or like Michael Browne, who aren't really adept at or interested in the scut work of governing.

    If Sheehan's candidacy is serious, she's asking us to swap a very experienced and capable liberal legislator and Speaker for a neophyte, on the basis of one (very important) issue, an issue on which they already agree. This doesn't seem like a good trade, however true it is that the left must keep up the pressure on ending the war. And on a week when some marvelous effects of lawyerly scut work and slow comity-based negotiations are on full display -- Rove and Gonzales leaving under investigation, and Bush increasingly isolated in his bunker with his war-- then it's even harder to see why anyone would switch a Pelosi for a newcomer.

    Posted by RLawrence at 08/31/2007 @ 11:39am

40. Democrats are doing a good job of Representing, the majority of Americans, who still have alot of waking up to do. Pelosi has responsibilities as House Speaker of making sure the Americans - not just in her own state - those American still halfway-asleep to what is going on are entitled to representation just as much as those of us who were wide awake from the very beginning.

    I wonder why it takes MOST Americans so long to catch on. I knew Bush was a Hitler - we were warned. We knew about PNAC, we knew about Bush's connections, we knew he was the idiot of a very weird family. MOST Americans didn't. MOST Americans are still waking up, little by little. "Bush intends to become a Hitler and kill more than 6 million people" - is still a far-fetched statement for many Americans.

    WHY couldn't the MAJORITY of Americans, have been right about Bush and Iraq from the very beginning, like some of us.

    Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 11:39am

41. Doesn't seem to be any pro Sheehan people.There only seems to be anti Pelosi people.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 11:46am

42. Zero-A person can be against Sheehan running for reasons other than an addiction to the status quo.Nice attempt at doing propaganda,though.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 11:57am

43. Zero-I'm not a Democrat.I'm,also,not going to rake Sheehan over the coals in order to show why I oppose her running.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 12:09pm

44. I always thought that readers of "The Nation" were well educated and informed about how this government runs. Firstly, Sheehan is not running for the Senate - Nancy Pelosi is not a Senator. Secondly, Sheehan is not running for Speaker of The House. That is not an office that the general electorate has a choice in deciding. Sheehan is running against Pelosi not to replace her as Speaker but to replace her as a district representative to The House of Representatives. The members of the house elect a speaker from their members, generally the party with the most members elect one of their own. Read the Constitution.

    Posted by streampac at 08/31/2007 @ 12:25pm

45. Zero-Sheehan doesn't have enough support to worry Pelosi or anyone else.Her running will accomplish nothing except for making Rush,Hannity,and the GOP happy.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 12:28pm

46. ...Sheehan accuses me of "stridently" (nice --does anyone EVER use that word for a man?) defending the Democratic Party's "complicity" in the war...

    Sheehan comes across as a bit self-righteous and a bit of an ass. But you don't sound much different when you look at quotes like the one above - that are both false and whiny.

    A simple search on stridently or strident in Google News, Nexis or practically anywhere else and you would have found that yes, stridently is used in reference to men. Doesn't the nation employ or at least have a few interns that you can ask to fact check if you can't be bother to do it yourself? It took me two minutes.

    Sexism exists. But let's not cry wolf about it and reduce everything to sexism. Do us a favor and at least check before talking about simple stupidity as sexism - so you avoid occasions like this one.

    Here's a few examples, so your fact checkers will know what to look for in the future.

    "STRIDENTLY original and bullishly single-minded, it's little wonder Australian director Rolf de Heer recoils at the idea of doing a big, stupid Hollywood..."

    "JOHN Howard stridently defended his honesty last night as his Government confronted some of its darkest days..."

    "These days, Giuliani talks stridently about requiring all noncitizens to receive "tamper-proof" ID cards, to learn English as a condition of citizenship..."

    http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=stridently&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&start= 0

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2007 @ 12:36pm

47. Don't know if ZERO will get reasoned responses from the Dem stalwarts on the blog......

    Cindy Sheehan shuld run even if she's just a one-trick pony! Her running is NO different than that of Ned LaMont who ran an earlier version of the same `one-trick'! Let the voters in her District decide if this `trick' is worth outing Pelosi!

    The Left-of-TN, anti-War crowd (most Lefties & Indies here) won't get far by slamming Pelosi had failed; unless the Dems lose --by some or a lot leading to change of control--come Nov. 2008. IF the Dems actually pick up seats and the WH, Pelosi will be a huge Hero and all will be forgiven! That, you can take to the bank!

    Pelosi's game, as is w/all pols', is to stay in power and answer their moneyed supporters and secondarily, their constituents. That's the bottom line, even if there is a 3rd viable party! Another thing, while the nutroots (& MASK) actually believes 70% of Americans want us out-of-Iraq unconditionally, it should be pretty clear that the pols not only don't buy it, they actually are backpedalling from their earlier strategy of just paying lip service to withdrawl!

    Get-Rich-Land-Deal-Harry, the same Surge-Failed-before-Commencing-Harry, is Exhibit One!

    Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 12:36pm

48. The thing I resent most about attempting to communicate with die-hard Democrats is that this group normally refuse to even acknowledge serious questions put to them, let alone answer any of these questions. All you ever get is regurgitated group think. Dissent is disallowed, as is, apparently, thinking as an individual or pointing out the elephant in the living room.----Posted by ZERO 08/31/2007 @ 12:06pm

    See?...If you don't want to be in "group-think" and want to be taken "serious"....you'll agree with ZERO!

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 12:38pm

49. Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 12:36pm

    HAPP, the Surge can't last. Top generals have said that by April 2008, we'll be out of troops The Army is breaking and eventually even Bush will have to start a pull-out.

    And NOTHING with the Nouri "Diem" al-Maliki government is going right, nor will in six months.

    The Dems are just scared of being BLAMED for the eventual collapse of Iraq...not dubious of it happening (nor is John Warner, Hagel, Collins, Snowe, etc.)

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 12:42pm

50. srjenkins has shown that strident is used in describing men. the different dictionaries i looked in have shrill, grating, irritating in the definition of strident. "screech" is in one of the definitions. to me this has the connotations of sexism. i see it as akin to "whining like a little girl." republican women are expert at subtly and not so subtly utilizing our culture's sick idea that being a woman is such a horrid thing that it can be used as an insult in and of itself.

    Posted by loveloki at 08/31/2007 @ 1:04pm

51. LvLiberty-It's unfortunate that conservatives don't have the courage to confront their own like liberals do.Liberals don't love to attack our own,but do like to confront each other in order to get feedback on our views as well as give others feedback on their views.It's good to make others think,but you conservatives avoid that.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 1:08pm

52. There is everything right in attempting to motivate congress to vote for pulling out our troops from Iraq, but it should target those in congress that are on the fence or against pulling out-- first. It would be easier to strong arm Pelosi when the votes are a lot closer to a successful resolution to do so, than not. Same holds true for impeachment. And there are groups doing just that. Wish Sheehan well, but the issue has to be resolved going into '08 or else all hell has broke out in ME regionally and could be an harbinger to a global meltdown... Sheehan running against Pelosi in that case will be the least of our concerns when nukes are flying about.

    Now if one wants to motivate the passive public about getting out of Iraq asap and not wait a year for elections, this is one type of incentive that will do it:

    "Halfway between documentary and fiction, "Redacted" draws on soldiers' home-made war videos, blogs and journals and footage posted on YouTube, reflecting changes in the way the media cover the war.

    "In Vietnam, when we saw the images and the sorrow of the people we were traumatizing and killing, we saw the soldiers wounded and brought back in body bags. We see none of that in this war," De Palma said.

    "It's all out there on the Internet, you can find it if you look for it, but it's not in the major media. The media is now really part of the corporate establishment," he said."

    http://tinyurl.com/35kukw

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/31/2007 @ 1:14pm

53. Posted by LOVELOKI 08/31/2007 @ 1:04pm

    LOVELOKI, it's not just "Republican women". Resident "Texan working class pure progressive" MTSPENCE regularly uses "whining like a little girl" at me (in reference to me calling him on his other failing, homophobia).

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 1:16pm

54. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/31/2007 @ 1:14pm

    HSUB, I was under the impression that the ONLY reason that Nancy Pelosi "appears" to be opposing impeachment is because she's next in Line of Succession (after Cheney) and that the only reason she "seems" to oppose it, is to not show a conflict of interest.

    Or was the guy telling me that full of it?

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 1:18pm

55. Frita, what guy?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/31/2007 @ 1:20pm

56. Frita, is he a little guy you made out of straw?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/31/2007 @ 1:28pm

57. yes mask, i've read a lot of that. republican women are expert at it but unfortunately, a great many people do it.

    Posted by loveloki at 08/31/2007 @ 1:32pm

58. "Other than attract a lot of attention for the anti-war movement, an impressive effort nonetheless, what else has she done? She's talented as an activist and a motivator for change, but how will that translate into the duties of Speaker of the House? Maybe she should start a little smaller, gain a little more leadership experience, make a name for herself in a few other ways, and then pull a stunt like the one she's attempting. It's just a little grandiose to take on the speaker of the house once your 15 minutes is about up."

    Cindy wouldn't be running for Speaker of the House, now would she? She'd be running for the House seat of the woman who said "Impeachment is off the table", a MAJOR tactical mistake and an unfortunate deafness to a moral imperative.

    Posted by brantl at 08/31/2007 @ 1:43pm

59. "Other than attract a lot of attention for the anti-war movement, an impressive effort nonetheless, what else has she done? She's talented as an activist and a motivator for change, but how will that translate into the duties of Speaker of the House? Maybe she should start a little smaller, gain a little more leadership experience, make a name for herself in a few other ways, and then pull a stunt like the one she's attempting. It's just a little grandiose to take on the speaker of the house once your 15 minutes is about up."

    Cindy wouldn't be running for Speaker of the House, now would she? She'd be running for the House seat of the woman who said "Impeachment is off the table", a MAJOR tactical mistake and an unfortunate deafness to a moral imperative. Can she represent any of the US citizens that are against the war? She already has.

    Posted by brantl at 08/31/2007 @ 1:49pm

60. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/31/2007 @ 1:28pm

    Odd little bird of a guy....in less than 60 days, 'fraid he's going to lose it.

    Anyway,HSUB, maybe you can answer in his stead....WHY IS Nancy Pelosi putting impeachment "off the table", and thereby incurring the "threat" of Cincy Sheehan running against her?

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 1:51pm

61. CONSHAMEONYOU,

    "... those of us who were wide awake from the very beginning. ...."

    Your eyes may be open, but you are far from awake. You are a loon and an idiot who couldn't lead a starving man to a buffet..

    Proof of your twisted world, oh looney tune...

    "Bush intends to become a Hitler and kill more than 6 million people" - is still a far-fetched statement for many Americans. "

    NOT TO YOU, RIGHT?

    you, "who always knew"...why is it no one takes those who always "knew" seriously?

    You, madam, are fucked ..in the head.

    The entertainment never ends on this blog, I can't get enough..You are fast overcomming WILL as the resident clown of choice in our office...Your posts are priceless..it just gets better...Hollywood can't write stuff that your little mind comes up with on a daily basis...how do you concentrate with the constant whirling sound and you levitation?

    Keep it coming, girl..you go girl!!!

    Should the dems lose this fall, we will have to put you on suicide watch....nah, we will give them the night off with free drinks..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/31/2007 @ 1:53pm

62. Posted by LOVELOKI 08/31/2007 @ 1:32pm

    Also noticed it with WILL...who developed this bizarre obsession with me being a female (I'm not, but would proudly be one), allowing him various anti-female slurs to be used against me. Never figured out which came first, his view that I was a woman or his view that accusing someone of being a woman was a "put-down"?!?!??

    A buddy of his has slipped into that mode of thinking as well....no names needed.

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 1:54pm

63. Should the dems lose this fall, we will have to put you on suicide watch....----Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/31/2007 @ 1:53pm

    Just a point of clarification, JOHN. "This fall"...there's no major election.

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 1:55pm

64. She (Cindy) is proving the Right right about their assessment of her and leaving the mainstream Dems and even some of the liberal base behind.

    Posted by MASK 08/30/2007 @ 8:35pm

    JUST ONE POINT ABOUT THE RIGHT'S ASSESSMENT OF SHEEHAN...

    She garnered well over 200 references in "The National Review" (I think the actual number was around 220), which was more than twice the number of her next closest "rival" -- Ralph Nader. Evidently the Right considers her far and away the biggest threat to their continued ascendancy towards a fascist America, and I'm inclined to agree. Even if Sheehan loses to Pelosi (which, I agree, is probably likely) at least the campaign will have the virtue of pointing up Pelosi's and the Democratic leadership's failures, especially in the matter of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as well as holding Bush/Cheney accountable for their crimes in office.

    I'll repeat that I'm a big fan of Katha Pollitt. Her writing is extremely clear, forceful, and logical. In this case, HOWEVER....

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/31/2007 @ 2:00pm

65. Just like in Vietnam...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/31/2007 @ 2:17pm

66. What did the Dem leadership do to prevent this senseless war? What has the Dem leadership done to end our involvement in this senseless war? What is the Dem leadership going to do to end our involvement in this senseless war?

    That's the deal. If you live in the district Pelosi represents your choice is crystal clear.

    Palomino.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:19pm

67. LvLiberty-Your original post was certainly implying that only liberals attacked their own.Liberals and the far left have always been at odds just as mainstream conservatives have been at odds with the far right.We aren't,in reality, attacking our own.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 2:20pm

68. LOVELOKI, it's not just "Republican women". Resident "Texan working class pure progressive" MTSPENCE regularly uses "whining like a little girl" at me (in reference to me calling him on his other failing, homophobia).

    Posted by MARY

    You do whine just like a little girl, incessantly, without shame. And now you whine about me criticizing you for whining.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:23pm

69. "LvLiberty-It's unfortunate that conservatives don't have the courage to confront their own like liberals do.Liberals don't love to attack our own,but do like to confront each other in order to get feedback on our views as well as give others feedback on their views.It's good to make others think,but you conservatives avoid that.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/31/2007 @ 1:08pm

    Ah, but conservatives do...they are calling for Craig to resign, as they did Foley..it is the democrats that REWARD this behavior...they get re elected, get promoted, or get rich by writting books on the joy of it all, ala, McGreevy of NJ..

    The conservatives hold theirs accountable if wrong doing is proven.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/31/2007 @ 2:24pm

70. Mask,

    Fair enough..I stand corrected...but I guess I am just too excited at the prospect..(can I say excited with BIG JOHN_SHAFT "hanging out" around here?)

    Posted by john maasch at 08/31/2007 @ 2:27pm

71. '...Sheehan accuses me of "stridently" (nice --does anyone EVER use that word for a man?) defending the Democratic Party's "complicity" in the war...'

    I would use strident in a description of Mary and his defence of the status quo.

    People can talk out of their asses all day long. It's what you do that matters, not what you say.

    What has Pelosi done as the Speaker? If you're happy with her performance (or lack of), then support her; but if you are not happy with the job she has done, put her sorry ass out in the street, regardless of what her defenders, supporters say.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:33pm

72. The conservatives hold theirs accountable if wrong doing is proven.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Yeah, sure they do. Take Libby for example.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 2:37pm

73. Yeah, sure they do. Take Libby for example.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/31/2007 @ 2:37pm

    He went throught the system, sentnenced, lost his job in disgrace, and was on his way to jail, has millions in legal bills from a crime never commited..and was justly commuted, not given a free ride......

    and Jefferson? or any of those I mentioned?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/31/2007 @ 2:45pm

74. Maasch-The problem is that some of those conservatives who are calling for Craig to resign are doing the same thing he was doing and your GOP front runner is a serial adulterer and he could become president.You do not hold them accountable.Newt and others in the GOP were committing adultery and engaging in Craig type conduct while pointing the finger at Clinton.You're hypocrites.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/31/2007 @ 2:46pm

75. Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 1:51pm

    Don't be scared Frita, they're not going to linch your Frito, nor cHeney, nor hsuB. Just going to kick them out or let them resign, one at a time. It's already started.

    As for Pelosi changing her mind to allow impeachment back on the table, like she said about your Frito before he resigned, a fair number of repubs have to start also considering impeachment of cHeney for her to say - 'yep, it's worth going for it-- as it has a chance now to move forward.' As we know the congress is not a dictatorship, unitary exec or not, it takes votes in congress for anything to move forward.

    Being a speaker for the ‘whole house' and not just for the dems and next in line of succession, (as apposed to the hsuB only being the president of the few new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy), I know that that's ‘a' reason to say it's ‘off the table' (apart from deflating repub shrilliness about dem revenge if elected), but that's different from it being ‘the' reason. There are several reasons for Pelosi to not publicly be pushing for impeachment of the exec depending on the time, place and event. I know this is always hard to grasp for one such as yourself, but think in terms of an outfielder moving around to an appropriate spot on the field depending on the batter that's up and runners on base. Similarly one would be a fool not to consider one's environment and acculturation. Thus I would say the reasons Pelosi would state- ‘impeachment is off the table' in February '06 as opposed to October or especially January '07, should shift in priority as the situation changes. Not ever saying that it's just one. Now that impeachment is more and more of an option August '07, and being considered pre-Frito resignation, looking at cHeney's long list of corruption(s) and known chronic lies for power, impeachment is looking pretty good for more and more in congress. Public sentiment and adamant demand for it, along with congressional votes, should be enough to move Pelosi and Conyers to action or at least not be the barriers.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/31/2007 @ 2:52pm

76. as far as i have seen, there are more male whiners than female whiners in the world. so perhaps the phrase should be--whining like a normal male.

    i am disappointed in many of pelosi's words and actions. i'm just not very impressed with sheehan.

    Posted by loveloki at 08/31/2007 @ 2:54pm

77. well said ms. pollitt. heck, if sheehan is giong to run against someone, how about a reactionary republican for chrissakes?

    her petulant response/letter to the Nation either showed Ms. Sheehan was writing you in a moment of weakness and/or vulnerability, or does indeed show she ain't ready for much of anything at the moment, much less a run for Pelosi's seat.

    just another profound sadness to come out of this Iraq Holocaust which we all get to witness and bear.

    good luck.

    Posted by Scrub at 08/31/2007 @ 2:59pm

78. Posted by LOVELOKI 08/31/2007 @ 2:54pm

    Sorry, LOVELOKI, Empty "has little concern for the speech police"....he cares nothing for the sexism of "whining like a little girl", anymore than he cares for the homophobia of using terms like "mary", "fruit", or "fag" to insult his debate opponents.

    He's a "progressive" and therefore "is allowed" to use those terms "safely".

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 3:18pm

79. Public sentiment and adamant demand for it, along with congressional votes, should be enough to move Pelosi and Conyers to action or at least not be the barriers.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/31/2007 @ 2:52pm

    See? You Sheehanites are just wasting your time. Another two months and Cheney then Bush will be impeached and Cindy will have no reason to run against Speaker Nancy. So sayeth the HSUB!

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 3:20pm

80. The Dems are just scared of being BLAMED for the eventual collapse of Iraq.....

    Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 12:42pm

    And THAT, is a legitimate political strategy (avoidance of very likely blame) and is NOT in conflict to my contention that they don't buy your "70% immediate-out majority" belief.....the curious question is, do you honestly believe you represent that mystical 70%???

    Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 3:25pm

81. You know, Happy, it could just be that The Nation supported Ned Lamont's run against Lieberman because Lieberman is a man, but opposes a run against Pelosi because Pelosi is a woman.....

    Posted by ZERO 08/31/2007 @ 12:47pm

    Damn, I should've had a V-8!! It takes a ZERO to zero-in on another angle! Wonder how the reactions would've been if one of these two women is a man, both scenarios of Mr./Ms. Sheehan challenging a Mr./Ms. Pelosi??!!

    Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 3:29pm

82. He went throught the system, sentnenced, lost his job in disgrace, and was on his way to jail, has millions in legal bills from a crime never commited..and was justly commuted, not given a free ride......

    and Jefferson? or any of those I mentioned?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    I don't defend Jefferson or any other Dem that breaks the law.

    So what if he lost his job in disgrace? That happens to everyone that is tried and convicted for a crime. Everyone, however, does not have their high priced legal representation paid for by fellow conservatives, nor does the President intercede and decide that the penalty is too harsh and issue a commutation.

    Crime he never committed? A jury tried him. Are you suggesting that are legal system can and does convict innocent defendants. If so, there is an appeal process available to pursue. (Why don't we take your silly little tack and ask Plame and her family how they feel about it?)

    You can't have it both ways, old man. Either the rules apply to everybody or they don't apply at all.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 3:30pm

83. Posted by LOVELOKI 08/31/2007 @ 2:54pm

    Sorry, LOVELOKI, Empty "has little concern for the speech police"....he cares nothing for the sexism of "whining like a little girl", anymore than he cares for the homophobia of using terms like "mary", "fruit", or "fag" to insult his debate opponents.

    He's a "progressive" and therefore "is allowed" to use those terms "safely".

    Posted by MASK

    If you're not familiar with mary and her conniving methods, this is her little game: whine and whine, continuously brand me or someone else with an accusation until someone like you falls for it. It's not about the words I use or anything like that; he has a little agenda and he doesn't like people like me pointing out the fallacies of this little agenda, and so he lies, fabricates, whines, quotes posts that were never posted, and does every other underhanded stunt he can come up with to discredit me and anyone else that calls him for the fraud, phoney, liar, shill that he is.

    Sure, I use coarse, incorrect language, but I'm not a liar or underhanded, and I'm not a cheater. You decide which is worse. (But please, don't be foolish enough to get sucked into his little con.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 3:38pm

84. Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 3:25pm

    Depends HAPPY, did you "honestly believe" you were part of the 70% who SUPPORTED the war when it started? Or was that number phoney too?

    Gallup, Harris, Rasmussen, Zogby, Quinnipiac, all in cahoots and those 70% disapprovals for the war and Bush are "made up"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 3:42pm

85. Sure, I use coarse, incorrect language....Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/31/2007 @ 3:38pm

    What's "incorrect" about it, Empty...and why don't you CORRECT it and stop using such terms as "mary", "fag", or "fruit" or phrases like "whining like a little girl"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 3:43pm

86. Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 3:20pm

    Nope, it's Frita that says it's all a waste of time, I say we all do our part to make it happen.

    Frita's part is waving her straw little men around and sees their little fairy dust sprinkling, while she sits in a stall in some public bathroom somewhere in time, forgotten to most; in her mind.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/31/2007 @ 3:45pm

87. What's "incorrect" about it, Empty...and why don't you CORRECT it and stop using such terms as "mary", "fag", or "fruit" or phrases like "whining like a little girl"?

    Posted by MARY

    Stop whining, mary. You cannot control what I do; you can only control what you do. So how about doing something with this lying problem you have? You have a great many other problems, but concentrating on your lying would be a good start.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 3:50pm

88. Or the whining. If you stopped the petulant, nonstop whining I'd have no reason to refer to you as a whining little girl, would I?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/31/2007 @ 4:00pm

89. 70% disapprovals for the war and Bush are "made up"?

    Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 3:42pm

    Please tell me you know, if you were commissioned to do a poll, how to construct the questions to get the results your client (or yourself), want!

    I disapprove a lot of things....like my son's approach to school work...what am I supposed to to? Have him drop out or Home School him so I can watch and monitor him 7~8 hours a day?

    Polls are useless for complex issues! When I get a call from a pollster, the first thing I ask is "How long will this take?"....If the voice says 10 to 15 minutes, I hang up.....If the voice says "just 5 minutes" and last beyond (they lie a lot), I have hung up more than I have finished!

    Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 4:00pm

90. HA,

    Like electing presidents... aparently.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/31/2007 @ 4:02pm

91. mtspence, i believe i had been posting here for a few years before you joined the little nation blogging group. i remember shortly after you began, you upset johannesrolf.

    needless to say, i have read a lot from mask. i agree with him on many things and i disagree with him on many things.

    Posted by loveloki at 08/31/2007 @ 4:04pm

92. Posted by LOVELOKI 08/31/2007 @ 1:32pm

    the different dictionaries i looked in have shrill, grating, irritating in the definition of strident. "screech" is in one of the definitions. to me this has the connotations of sexism. i see it as akin to "whining like a little girl."

    I must say, screech brings to mind predatory birds - like owls. This is at best an example of "politically correct" reaching, which undermines her writing and the thrust of her commentary.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 08/31/2007 @ 2:54pm

    ...there are more male whiners than female whiners in the world. so perhaps the phrase should be--whining like a normal male...

    Apparently, sexism is ok so long as it is directed at males. How about we just call it whining, whoever is doing it? I'd say the same to MTS, but I don't think he would listen. MASK seems to have some kind of affect on him.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2007 @ 4:12pm

93. Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 4:00pm

    Polling is a science. While the books can be cooked, reputable polling organizations exist to determine public opinion. Accurate polls can be done and you simply can't dismiss the facts that come out of them because you don't like them.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2007 @ 4:16pm

94. Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 4:00pm

    HAPP, again, why were the 70% approvals for the war "correct", but the 70% disapprovals for the war "incorrect"?

    And are you honestly arguing that Bush is at 29% because "the majority of Americans" want to continue HIS policy in Iraq...or is this some bizarre interpretation by which America wants Bush to do MORE in Iraq (more troops, more bombings, carpet bomb Fallujah) and "disapproves of the war" because...we're not being "tough" enough?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 4:44pm

95. ....because you don't like them.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/31/2007 @ 4:16pm

    On a complex & contentious war, the follow up question after "Approve/Disapprove?", should be "What do you want the US to do?" or at the least, direct respondents to choose one of several possible, real world choices.

    If the "70% Disapproval" poll had stated in the follow up question:

    "IF you Disapprove of the war (the 70% being flouted), would you want a total and immediate troop withdrawal regardless of any possible short or long-term consequences?"

    IF the second part of the question was ALL answered as "YES", then you can pound on us with that "70%". Doesn't mean we will all fold but we'll certainly believe we are in fact, 30%-ters! My guess is, had the question been posed something like what I cite, the "YES" part would be less than half (of the 70%)...and we end up with maybe 30 to 40% of the total polled who would want "Out of Iraq w/out regards to consequences". Whether you or MASK agree with this is questionable but how Congress, especially the Dem ones, voted, is enough confirmation for me!

    Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 4:44pm

96. I'd say the same to MTS, but I don't think he would listen. MASK seems to have some kind of affect on him. ----Posted by SRJENKINS 08/31/2007 @ 4:12pm

    Yeah, it's called "he's wrong on his use of slurs, but his massive ego wouldn't allow him to admit it and somehow make ME 'right'". Won't psychoanalyze it, but I think you know what his problem is.

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 4:47pm

97. Apparently, sexism is ok so long as it is directed at males.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/31/2007 @ 4:12pm

    i believe so. yes.

    Posted by loveloki at 08/31/2007 @ 4:47pm

98. Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 4:44pm

    HAPPY, since "the polls are wrong"....point blank

    What do YOU think a majority of the American people feel about the occupation of Iraq? And what data do you base that on, if any?

    Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 4:50pm

99. why were the 70% approvals for the war "correct", but the 70% disapprovals for the war "incorrect"?

    ...."disapproves of the war" because...we're not being "tough" enough?!?!?

    Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 4:44pm

    OK, MASK, I'm in a decent mood following the global markets' nice ending going into the Holidays!

    The approval for the war was obtained after BushCo laid out its rationales and was also followed by 12 years of playing `foot tapping, hand waving and hoodwinking w/Saddam'! We were both part of that 70% and that was a legitimate number since the period preceding the "War Authorization" was more than sufficiently long and folks had a pretty good (and correct) idea that Saddam had to go!

    The present 70% you flaunt, is NOT bona fide....I explained in part @ 4:44 pm! Another reason I'll cite, is that unlike the prewar poll, an ongoing war ebbs and flows and peoples' answers WILL vary....lest you forget, when "Mission Accomplished", Bush's number shot up to something like 90% and you won't argue that we can equate that to `90% approval of the war', right?

    As you know, I'm not as wedded to the "Democratic Iraq at all costs" as I may come across at times. For the sake of the country, after Gen. P's report in September, I'd like to see a new, well-designed poll that most can accept as Fair and Balanced, if it is even truly possible!!!

    Posted by Happy at 08/31/2007 @ 5:01pm

100. Posted by LOVELOKI 08/31/2007 @ 4:47pm

     If it is okay to be sexist toward men, it's okay to be sexist toward women. You can't have a double standard. I'd rather we just try to refrain from it altogether rather than standardize it so everyone does it.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2007 @ 5:05pm

101. John Maasch, I remind you that you ARE WRONG about Bush and WRONG about Iraq, you WERE wrong, you ARE wrong. Bush and Iraq happen to be the 2 biggest issues America is facing, or has faced, in our 200 year history. John Maasch, your contribution to history was to do everything in your little power, to help Republicans make the world a WORSE place than it is - INSTEAD OF BETTER. SHAME ON YOU, John Maasch.

     Splitters, go ahead, help the John Maaschs of the world. It doesn't make you "as bad as the Republicans" - a charge you Naderite Sheehanite Splitters bandy about like it was nothing. I will not be praying to Jesus for the splitters of the left to be burned alive forever, because I am honest. You simply ARE NOT as evil as Republicans - as pathetic maybe - but not as evil.

     Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 5:58pm

102. Posted by CONSHAME 08/31/2007 @ 10:25am | ignore this person

     "If Sheehan's candidacy is serious, she's asking us to swap a very experienced and capable liberal legislator and Speaker for a neophyte, on the basis of one (very important) issue, an issue on which they already agree."

     Posted by RLAWRENCE 08/31/2007 @ 11:39am | ignore this person

     It would be great if either of you could mitigate the, lets say, folly, of your comments by refuting any of the points Zero (thanks for saving me some typing, by the way, excellent posts) has made with logic and not mere (which is all you really hear from the nay-sayers, when they are not projecting, that is) characterization?

     There are facts on the ground, which being mutually exclusive with your statements, cannot exist rationally in the same universe. What Zero has posted, and what you have posted, cannot both be true ...

     Mask,

     ‘As with a lot of the Blogosphere, Ms Sheehan has gotten pulled to an Extreme Left"

     "The fact that some of the sane Left and liberals here are seeing that is another indicator that Ms Sheehan's bid for election in the 8th California is doomed to failure."

     Typical of your fantasy based logic, as the "dead-ender," anti Sheehan people are only a few percentage points better than the people who support the war, in terms of numbers ... you and those like you, in any context and wherever the context arises, forming the minority. You attempt to do what the rethuglians, and the "main stream media" attempt to do, try to cast the majority as a minority, though in the hall of mirrors fantasy of your mind I think you were telling the truth as you "see it," factual, real world, minority status notwithstanding ...

     "I saw somebody who has rapidly assumed the holier-than-thou status of a egomaniac on a crusade, and all who stand in her way (even old friends and allies) are "heathens"."

     You got your degree in psychology from where? As I have been stating, mere, projection. For you, anyone who has faith in something, a belief in something, makes a stand against or not supported by the vagaries of vox populi public opinion, has by definition committed a crime, as your posts throughout the years have shown, worthy of at least disparagement.

     "But what THIS thread is discussing is that snotty, self-righteous "You're either with me or against me" (sound familiar?) tone in the letter Ms Sheehan sent to "The Nation" and the attack on Katha Pollitt as some "Iraq war enabler" because she DARED question Saint Cindy."

     I did not read it that way, so, no, (also, see the previous line) I think she saw it for what it was, sugar coating and all. If ones response to Pelosi's speakership, as Zero has passionately and eloquently enumerated in this thread and elsewhere, is nothing. What else are you, despite somewhat circuitous protestations to the contrary, but a passive aggressive (at best) enabler of Bush, and this neo-con War, both?

     Lastly,

     "Again, ZERO and feminism...really starting to think "V" isn't the only LaRoucher we have here!

     heheh

     Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 11:20am | ignore this person "

     Mask, go bait your children, that way they'll begin to see what an (lying) ass you are, as most others do, and be the better for it. Offset some of the damage you've done by giving them a faithless, nihilist, misanthrope for a father.

     Posted by V at 08/31/2007 @ 6:00pm

103. 63% of The Nation's readers who responded to the online poll agree that Cindy should run!

     Should Cindy Sheehan be challenging Nancy Pelosi in 2008?

     Absolutely. Someone needs to hold Pelosi accountable for taking impeachment off the table. (2378) 49%

     Sure. The whole process is a circus anyway; we might as well add another sideshow. (678) 14%

     No way. Sheehan already has a crucial role to play as an activist. (986) 20%

     I'm sick of Sheehan. Didn't she retire from politics? (747) 15%

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/31/2007 @ 7:15pm

104. Only slightly off topic...

     Consider the deception of the hsuB/cHeney admin and their reinterpretion of the Iraqi war funding benchmarks as yet another frat brat stunt; a deadly one.

     The reason for setting a benchmark and a deadline is contingent on how, why and where one places the point of success.

     Lets consider the 'where'-- as we already know the how and the why of the congressional funding bill and its conditions agreed to by hsuB (sans writing statement), of the Iraqi war funding benchmarks. I believe understanding whether the benchmark setting is either a success or failure lies in a clear visual interpretation of 'where' the point 'is' that's needing to be crossed.

     The way I can see it being definitive and perfectly clear for most I've explained it to, is to imagine 'the benchmark point' in question as being 'on' a 'number line'. Remember what that is? It's a line with progressive positive and negative numbers (integers) on either side of a zero. Well, couple that with a rhubric grading system. If one were to place the benchmark point squarely on zero and say-- that is the point that needs to be crossed to start measuring success, it helps to conceptualize the definition of a benchmark tremendously. Ergo one can imagine that the Iraqi were at about -120 and moved to -110 in one of the areas being measured, but still haven't crossed zero, where the benchmark is, and where they may not cross for another 20 years at their rate of movement. So consider the ludicrousness of someone saying that success is being made since movement from -120 to -110 is making progress when one has to at 'least' cross '0' to make a grade of 'D'. Yes, there are measurements of success, but then again there are also measurements of failure. If one does not even make it to '0', one is merely measuring degrees of failure and not degrees of success. Doesn't it help to see benchmark movement in both positive and negative?

     Perhaps this is easier to understand now-- One of my students wanted me to 'give' him extra points for improving from a 32 to a 38, when he had to 'earn' at least 60 points to make even a low 'D', 70 for a 'C', 80 for a 'B'... Yes, sad. He did learn enough to drop my class eventually.

     You get the idea.

     I hope.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/31/2007 @ 7:31pm

105. Posted by V 08/31/2007 @ 6:00pm |

     And V, why don't you and the LaRouche Youth Chorus go off and sing some "Western European culture" classics. (Remember! No "Beatles" or "Rolling Stones"...Lyndon says they corrupt our REAL culture...plus they're....you know....BRITISH!)

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 7:42pm

106. For the sake of the country, after Gen. P's report in September, I'd like to see a new, well-designed poll that most can accept as Fair and Balanced, if it is even truly possible!!!

     Posted by HAPPY 08/31/2007 @ 5:01pm |

     If it shows minority support for the war (49% or less), you'll say it's not "Fair and Balanced"...if it shows majority support, you will.

     Simple as that. You cannot accept the majority of the public don't approve of this war.

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 7:43pm

107. And once again you pull it, Pollit-- the necrotized little politically correct stunt of judging a person based on the use of words arbitarily included in a "gotcha!" list. Which is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Run a search on google and you'll find out how frequently "stridently" is used with reference to males. The bottom line is that Sheehan acts, whereas you pillars of the...nation blabber while spinning in a self-referential orbit.

     Posted by chinpoko at 08/31/2007 @ 8:45pm

108. Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 7:42pm | ignore this person

     Even that's a lie, if you really wanted me to do that, you would have left me the fuck alone, a long time ago.

     "No way. Sheehan already has a crucial role to play as an activist. (986) 20%

     I'm sick of Sheehan. Didn't she retire from politics? (747) 15%

     Posted by METTEYYA 08/31/2007 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person"

     These lines are what makes wrath lawful ... in that a significant percentage of the 20%'ers could doubtless be persuaded with valid arguments, to be pro Sheehan. Which would give Sheehan a 83% tsunami grade strength. As broken down that line implies, that to them, Cindy has integrity. Only the 15% "dead enders" think that she does not. One cannot escape the intuition, that were the Nation and Huffington Post, to get uncomfortable on the gate keeping, status quo, pseudo PR fence, so as to rally the nettroots and the 8th district left, with coherent, engaged, passionate, arguments, the geometry of our times would change considerably, and much for the better. But they seemingly wish, not to lead, which is a good thing after a fashion, I think ...

     Yes there is room here, for both sides of the table on this issue, and, I am glad that the space also includes Plunger and Reese. That there is a place for them here has a virtue beyond the arguments of this thread. And speaks well for the Nation. Nonetheless the arguments are not equal, in their passion or their truth. As, on a personal note, I have come to the conclusion that the best, and to me, the only acceptable way, we can truly honour those who died on 911 is to return our Republic to the state of rights and freedoms that existed in the country they died in. Therefore, I find the standard set by those who obsequiously, and for whatever vested interest, support the status quo, lacking in wit, if not character, personally offensive, and having next to nothing to do the above stated goals.

     So, the Cindy Sheehan vs Pelosi struggle, is where the powers that be, to the left and to the right, are weakest. Where the mirror is already cracked, it has but to be broken. The fulcrum against which to place the lever of a standard, acceptable, to a free people. To those of the 20% mind set, you have to become the activists, it's your turn, now ... the side lines are gone, they belong to another time, we, each of us, bear responsibility for our future. This, is what is missing in the contrary arguments, what rights do they fight for, really? Directly or indirectly? It's hard for you to bring passion, to the effort, of sitting on the side lines, isn't it?

     Posted by V at 08/31/2007 @ 9:50pm

109. katha, this is for you (btw not at you--i generally like your posts):

     "end the fucking war!"

     screamed STRIDENTLY* by Frosty Zoom, male

     *ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Latin strident- ‘creaking,' from the verb stridere.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2007 @ 10:07pm

110. Posted by V 08/31/2007 @ 9:50pm

     V, I'll quit mentioning your following of Mr LaRouche....

     as soon as you give me 2-3 political issues you DISAGREE with said individual on?

     two?....any?

     Else you're claim to "free thinker" status is bullshit and you, like a Moonie who doesn't admit they're a Moonie until they've suckered you in for a "weekend meeting", are a LaRouche cultist who is trying to hide that fact, because you know the reaction you'd get here (and anywhere actually).

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2007 @ 10:30pm

111. Cindy Sheehan, I call upon you to pay attention to this message. The game is IRAN these days - not Iraq anymore. I worry about your soul. If you can get Nancy Pelosi to come out against attacking Iran and refute Bush's new lies, before it is too late, then you're a hero.

     Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 10:37pm

112. I call upon Nancy Pelosi, call Bush a liar, raise some doubt about his credibility. BUSH HAS ZERO EVIDENCE about Iran.

     Sheehan really ought to take note of the very short amount of time American Democracy has left to live, if we can't come together and FOCUS ON IRAN NOW. Stop the liar Bush from starting a war with Iran.

     Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 10:40pm

113. Splitters, you insist the only way to stop a war with Iran is impeachment. I disagree. Iranians have been demonized for over 25 years. Bush's new lies about Iran are falling on fertile soil. Americans have an irrational hatred of Iranians wider and deeper than their hatred of Iraqis as a result of demonization from 92-2002.

     Impeachment would take hours, and Bush only needs seconds to pick up the phone and order his psychotic un-patriotic traitors, to torch the tinderbox. Impeachment would not work any way shape or form!!!! That, to claims that the "ONLY WAY" to stop the war with Iran is impeachment.

     Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 10:46pm

114. Unfortunately for America, we are ripe suckers for lies regarding Iran, just as we were about Iraq. Impeachment has greater popularity, than preventing a war with Iran!!!!

     Americans were repeatedly told about Saddam Hussein over and over, until we forget there are other people living in Iraq. Of course, all the Baathists were demons, they all deserved to be killed. The "good Iraqis" were framed as cheap, to the point where they're all going to supposedly be grateful when we kill them. So just drop a whole bunch of bombs. Americans SUPPORTED killing Iraqis. Yes they DID. Americans believed the lies - and they were obvious lies, about yellow cake, about the meeting in Prague. Americans didn't need lies to even be believable.

     IRAN IS EVEN WORSE. Americans actually believe, that all Iranians who don't want America to overthrow their government, ought to be killed. Those innocents (Iranians who want Americans to come over and bomb), those good pro-American Iranians, who happen to be slaughtered, they'll be happy we killed them. Americans think this way. You Naderites don't like to face up to this. You're lost, man, in some world where you think the "polls" show that Americans can't be duped into supporting a war with IRAN!!!!

     Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 10:58pm

115. You Naderites truly believe, don't you, that Americans are going to be "dragged kicking and screaming" into killing Iranians? You really believe that Americans are innocent in what their leaders are doing don't you? You really believe that the vast majority of Americans have no hatred for Iran that is ripe for exploitation?

     Somebody with the necessary fame, must call Bushs new lies, about Iran, what they are before it is too late. WE NEED PELOSI TO COME OUT AGAINST BUSHS WAR AMBITIONS WITH IRAN. Somebody has to Pressure Her.

     Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 11:03pm

116. So, Cindy Sheehan, I sure hope that you really are a decent American who doesn't just want to foster division among opponents of Bush. Iraq is not what is going on these days, IT IS IRAN, Now.

     Posted by conshame at 08/31/2007 @ 11:04pm

117. Cindy hit the nail on the head in her response. She's pissed because she knows she's been chewed up and spit out. At least she's not so delusional as not to realize the truth of the Democratic party.

     Posted by Person at 08/31/2007 @ 11:06pm

118. "Posted by V 08/31/2007 @ 9:50pm

     V, I'll quit mentioning your following of Mr LaRouche....

     as soon as you give me 2-3 political issues you DISAGREE with said individual on?

     two?....any?

     Else you're claim to "free thinker" status is bullshit and you, like a Moonie who doesn't admit they're a Moonie until they've suckered you in for a "weekend meeting", are a LaRouche cultist who is trying to hide that fact, because you know the reaction you'd get here (and anywhere actually).

     Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 10:30pm | ignore this person"

     For truths sake ...

     LMAO ... You don't have to quit, the more so as that is not what I meant, you can keep making an ass of yourself as long as you wish, I could care less. I will simply continue, when the mood arises, as I did above and as I said I would do, some two weeks ago, when I first found out how far you would go to smear someone who was capable of seeing into, grasping, your true nature, and or agenda. When I caught you lying about the Jewish Holocaust, in order to smear someone. I said you were dismissed, and that I was pretty much done with you, except for one thing ...

     I said I would in the, no matter the fun of it, secondary, process of handing you your backside, point out the insectoid, logical and cognitive, dissonances, inconsistencies, and bald face lies, that you excrete. Period. That is all you represent to me, someone who is chronically, as you are in this post, incapable of honesty or integrity. A person who from time to time will, for truth's sake, need to have the lies they spew, squashed.

     And now that I've stopped laughing;.upset aren't you? I say that because; "Else you're claim to "free thinker" status is bullshit and you ... " That line reads ‘Else you are claim to "free thinker"' Mask you have lied so much you don't have sufficient credit to render a tear in a paper bag, let alone anything "bullshit." You can only keep up the pretense of having an intellectually honest facade but for so long, then you collapse, and vibrate to your original, tragically dysfunctional, harmony. The premise of your quest is so simple minded, any thinker, free or not, can de-construct it with ease. That's not the issue, the issue is I caught you lying, you have never been able to mount a refutation to any of the issues or arguments I have raised. And have instead, insanely, tried as you do here, to use character assassination and lies as a method of redemption.

     " and you, like a Moonie who doesn't admit they're a Moonie until they've suckered you in for a "weekend meeting", are a LaRouche cultist who is trying to hide that fact, because you know the reaction you'd get here (and anywhere actually"

     Really? Your problem, aside from not knowing when to quit, is, and with all do respect what makes me better than you, is this; You argue from the standpoint of personality, and opinion, popular and otherwise that's your depth. It's not whither or no someone is wrong or not, telling a great truth or a great lie, it's the more uninformed the better, opinion, that has the greatest power, and value to and for you. I on the other hand argue the truth, opinion, informed or not, public, or not, be damned. Which is why anyone who has bothered to follow this sad saga, has never heard you answer let alone refute, any one of my many, questions.

     But lets back to your idiotic stance, and the excreta from same, shall we?

     "cultist who is trying to hide that fact, because you know the reaction you'd get here (and anywhere actually)"

     Again really? This is what I got when I tried to I spose "hide," by posting something from as if I discern it to be the truth I could care less (unlike poor Mask) it's source, Larouche. Not that it's needed, as I don't seek consensus but the truth, but for reference, and to show what Mask already knew when he posted his latest lies.

     "V:

     Wow, great post. Really.

     WOLFGANG1:

     Thank you for your kind words, sir. Much appreciated.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 08/31/2007 @ 10:43am | ignore this person "

     What I posted follows. Oh and if you come upon this, thanks JORCHIEM ...

     Posted by V at 09/01/2007 @ 02:00am

119. First things first ...

     "The (rich, white) men who wrote "general welfare" didn't mean it the way you do.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/29/2007 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person "

     "I'm pretty sure it had something to do with continuing to own thier wives as property, and beating their slaves whenever they felt like it. And making sure only people who were property owners could vote.

     Admittedly, America today is very different from the America they wrote their document in. I think we both agree that today's America is much better. It is better because of progress. Some of that progress has been achieve by amending the constitution. Some progress has been achieved more informally. I'm in favor of formal progress.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/29/2007 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person"

     WTF? ... Nonsense.

     "The real solution, in my view, is to re-industrialize America. America's industrial capacity is around 13 percent. That is completely unacceptable in my view. It is long past time to make America great again. And the only way to do that is to stop cheap garbage from coming in here from China and Vietnam and to start making the things we not only want, but need again. Alexander Hamilton understood this quite well...............

     Posted by POSEIDON 08/30/2007 @ 10:57am | ignore this person"

     Excellent post.

     Posted by POSEIDON 08/30/2007 @ 11:24am | ignore this person

     Actually this goes to the true conception of Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin's authorship when crafting the Declaration of Independence;

     "Go back to the--again--to the Declaration of Independence, not as crafted by Jefferson, but actually crafted under the direction of Benjamin Franklin. And what is the central conception of this? After going through the details of justice, injustice, the causes for freedom of the United States from its British monarch, which is the essential, and central argument there. The argument is: The argument for the commonwealth society, the General Welfare. In this case, they take a phrase directly from Leibniz's attack on Locke, in the New Essays on Human Understanding of Leibniz. Which was a key reference point for the Americans, and especially for Franklin, in forming the United States.

     Now, the term is "the pursuit of happiness." Now, the "pursuit of happiness," pertains not to greed, or not to utilitarian notions, but rather to the fact that we are all mortal individuals--we die. We all die. Therefore, do we die as animals, or do we die as something else? And this distinction is located, where? And Leibniz is clear on this, as Plato is: The difference between man and beast, lies in those creative powers, which I referenced again today, in terms of the ability to discover a universal physical principle, or to discover the same distinct kind of idea, in the form of, shall we say, [conductor Wilhelm] Furtwängler's concept of "performing between the notes," in terms of the composition in the Bach tradition, a composition based on Florentine bel canto voice-training and its application, the idea of the "comma" from the Pythagoreans.

     So, this idea of creativity, as a distinction between man and the beast, is the meaning of "happiness." That is, we're all going to die, so therefore, how can we take pleasure out of the fact that we're going to die? We can only take pleasure out of the fact we're going to die, when what we're doing while we're alive, somehow has permanent value for society: that we will live in the future, in that way, and practically, as our ancestors, our predecessors, who made discoveries of principle we share, live in us. So therefore, the right to have a life, while we live, which is a fulfillment of that which makes us human, rather than monkeys, is the "pursuit of happiness"--the right to development, in a sense. The right to education: This was a big issue! As for the question of slaves--it was illegal--you could be killed, as a crime against the local state, for allowing a slave to become educated to read and write.

     This is the same issue raised in the Prometheus Bound, as the charge made by Zeus against Prometheus, for allowing people to know how to use fire. And the same thing, the principle of slavery was the stupidity factor: You can live, if you're stupid. And then, when freedom came, then you had liberals in the United States who had been opposed to slavery, but who nonetheless said, "We must not over-educate the children of these ex-slaves." In other words, again, the same thing: Keep them stupid! And tell them, that their interest is to be stupid! To think stupid things! To eliminate ideas from their life--to be "in their nature," that is, stupid, uneducated. As against Frederick Douglass and all the freedom fighters, who said that the freedom and development of the mind is the first step to freedom of the body. If we don't have freedom of the mind, freedom of the body is a tenuous thing, which you may lose very easily--because of your mutual stupidity.

     So therefore, the issue of "happiness," is the issue of the education and development of man: So that, while we have a mortal life, we have the prescience, that our life is immortal because it's a vehicle for contributing something of immortal value from the past, from our own lives, into the future.

     And this is the notion of the General Welfare. This notion is not new. The notion is the principle of agape, which is the central conception of the first Encyclical by the most recently installed Pope, Benedict XVI: the principle of agape. Which is the principle of I Corinthians 13, for example. This is the principle.

     Now, this principle existed, then. It existed with Plato. It existed before Plato, but it was articulated by Plato, through the voice of Socrates in the Republic, and through other writings. That's the issue. But, the society, as a society based on agape, a political society, was first established in Europe during the 15th Century. It was defined, first of all, by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (before he was a Cardinal), in his Concordantia Catholica--Universal Accord. And this superseded the question of On the Subject of Monarchy by Dante Alighieri, whose work on poetry and the Italian language, and the development of the Italian language, was the characteristic of all of the work of Dante Alighieri. And this was embodied in this form, by Nicholas of Cusa, subsequently the canon cardinal of the Church. And this was expressed, also, in Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, which was the foundation of modern experimental science.

     This form of society was first established, under the influence of the 15th-Century Renaissance, in France under Louis XI. And this was called a commonwealth society, in French. The society was the commonwealth: That is, the monarch is the slave, in a sense, the instrument who must serve the cause of the General Welfare, and this is exactly what Louis XI did, in transforming, and doubling the national income of France, within the period of his reign! He avoided war, when he could; he paid for peace, when he had to; but he doubled the national income of France, physically, within his reign. He adopted a member of the British aristocracy, the Norman aristocracy, Richmond, who became Henry VII, who did the same thing in England, and established what became known as the "commonwealth principle" in English law--before Henry VIII.

     So, this commonwealth principle, which was embodied, as a declaration in the Plymouth Colony--but explicitly, as the commonwealth principle, in the founding of Massachusetts, as a colony, the founding of Pennsylvania as a colony, and so forth. So, the commonwealth conception was the foundation of the United States: That the state must be the slave of the interests of present and future generations, and the realization of the aspiration of generations before. This is the principle of the General Welfare, which is central to the Constitution."

     link [larouchepub.com]

     Mask if you can do better lets hear it.

     Posted by V at 09/01/2007 @ 02:08am

120. http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 02:54am

121. Looks like our troops are experiencing a 60% increase in fatalities from last year. I'd say the surge is an obviously flawed strategy all round-- unless that's one of the hsuB/cHeney admin's intentions. Or the hsuB/cHeney admin simply don't care.

     US fatalities in Iraq by month:

     ___2006________________2007

     Jan-06 ___62_________Jan-07 ___83

     Feb-06 ___55_________Feb-07 ___81

     Mar-06 ___31_________Mar-07 __ 81

     Apr-06 ___76_________Apr-07 _ 104

     May-06 __ 69_________May-07 _126

     Jun-06 ___61_________Jun-07 _ 101

     Jul-06 ___ 43_________Jul-07 ___79

     Aug-06 __ 65_________Aug-07 __81

     Totals __ 462________________ 736

     http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

     Want to see that go from 60% to 6000% increase-- bomb Iran.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 03:28am

122. If one were to say that the increase in fatalities has a greater purpose, is one then implying that the previous 3000 did not... unless again, that 'is' the purpose, to increase our troop's fatalities.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 03:46am

123. I am sorry that The Nation is encouraging Ms. Pollitt's erroneous, defeatist and establishment brainwashed views by printing yet another rejoi der, this time under th heading "And Another Thing", correctly framing it as a pile on of insult.

     This piece is classic passive-agressive.

     This little debate or discussion and the concurrent comments are extremely revelatory, most by folks who went for Dean I bet in the beginning, because Kucinich was "unelectable" and before the meaid trounced him and Mr Kerry emerged as the chosen candidate, by the establishment.

     What gets lost in this vacuum og blogging and commentary, is what Ms. Sheehan has gone through, and what she has done.

     Her son was killed in Iraq.

     After that event, look at what she had done with the encampment/s and galvanizing folks. I have seen her supporters and fellow organizers leap over police barricades to get their point across. Taking that energy form the streets to the the streets and campuses and electroal arena is somethng we should celebrate. In a deomcracy the more candiadtes the better, the coke/pepsi false dichotomy applied to politics is a tool they have introduced into our brains and it is deplorable that The Nation is giving our progressive cache to self styled intelectuals to carp at powerful women working to implement change.

     Wake up and smell the far trade organic coffee. Look at what the Congressional leadership has been complicit in!

     Whether folks can win or not, in Cali or across the country, these people listen to electoral challenges only, or possible ones, not to the pettions and calls and letters and plaques, except inasmuch as they indicate the potential challenge at the polls.

     The ignorance here is astounding, but maybe cause we dont make time to comment. Just one, to ask what she has done that will translate into the duties of the Speaker of the House? Recall Hastert and Delay? And the votes this Speaker has greased? Anyhow, winning the Congressional seat does not equate becoming the Speaker.

     Want to know Pelosi's expertince prior to office? She was picked

     Financial status

     The Pelosi family has a net worth of over US$25 million, primarily from Paul Pelosi's investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, he also has millions of dollars in stock from publicly traded companies such as Microsoft, Amazon.com and AT&T. In 2003, the Pelosi family sold their eight-acre (three hectare) Rutherford vineyard. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress.[5]

     [edit] Congressional career Future Speaker Nancy Pelosi with the late fellow Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill Future Speaker Nancy Pelosi with the late fellow Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill Pelosi and House Minority Whip (now Majority Leader) Steny Hoyer meeting with President George W. Bush on November 9, 2006. Pelosi and House Minority Whip (now Majority Leader) Steny Hoyer meeting with President George W. Bush on November 9, 2006.

     ""Pelosi worked her way up in Democratic politics (((How does one do that I wonder?)))to become party chairwoman for Northern California, and joined forces with one of the leaders of the California Democratic Party, 5th District Congressman Phillip Burton.Phillip Burton died in 1983 and was succeeded by his wife, Sala. In late 1986, Sala became ill with cancer and decided not to run for reelection in 1988. She picked Pelosi as her designated successor, guaranteeing her the support of the Burtons' contacts." :-) How sweet it is.

     Finally, the snide snarky passive agressive remarks, Ms. Pollitt, are absolutely shameful!

     Posted by Mario Buda at 09/01/2007 @ 07:42am

124. Posted by V 09/01/2007 @ 02:00am |

     Aside from mere attacks on me, try answering the question and use THAT to prove my supposition wrong.

     Name 2-3 things you DISAGREE with LaRouche on....if you can't, that speaks for itself!

     Posted by Mask at 09/01/2007 @ 08:40am

125. Finally, the snide snarky passive agressive remarks, Ms. Pollitt, are absolutely shameful!----Posted by MARIO BUDA 09/01/2007 @ 07:42am

     I assume you're speaking of Ms Sheehan's snide snarky passive agressive remarks like---

     "Maybe Katha Pollitt et al. should go to the Middle East and view the carnage that this Administration has caused with the complicity of the Democratic Party, which she so stridently defends."

     Posted by Mask at 09/01/2007 @ 08:41am

126. http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/01/2007 @ 02:54am

     thanks for the link!

     someone (¿you?) here recently said something to the effect of "america isn't against war, it's against losing wars"

     i wish i had mask's magic time machine to find quotes on old threads.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 08:52am

127. cONSHAME,

     You need to refill your prescriptions..NOW! Obviously you have run out. You are a clown too many of us, but on a serious note, you are are serious threat to yourself and those in your immediate vacinity.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/01/2007 @ 09:15am

128. someone (¿you?) here recently said something to the effect of "america isn't against war, it's against losing wars"

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/01/2007 @ 08:52am

     Nope, weren't me. That's good idea though-- a 'The Nation'- blog search-engine of phrases! Even if it could only get to the right page...

     In any case I did not write the above, mostly because I don't believe a significant portion of our population does believe that, some, sure, they do. But in this case, going into Iraq and its occupation, since we have a bunch of ideological frat brat new con supporters, servicers to dic'tator philosophy, hsuB/cHeney admin chose not to follow the biggest rule in war - plan to win. They simply didn't plan that part. Their only plan was for oil and bud profit.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 10:23am

129. In which case everyone should be fed up with the hsuB/cHeney admin enough to kick out like yesterday. Impeach cHeney first, now that r0ve and Frito are out of the way along with a few more repub congressmen.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 10:30am

130. John Maasch, whatever. YOU ARE WRONG, about Iraq, about Bush, YOU ARE STILL WRONG. Iraq and Bush are the 2 greatest issues ever to face America, and this new issue about Iran is even greater. YOU are on the wrong side of history, supporting authoritarian idiots who are slaughtering Americans, making America less safe. WHEN are you Republican Conservatives goingt to redeeam yourselves and your stupid ideology.

     Posted by conshame at 09/01/2007 @ 10:55am

131. Sloooowly I turn, step by step, inch by inch, I look around for Iraq...

     Dems weren't always bums...

     http://www.dlmweb.com/news69.html

     ps. check out the YouTube menu

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 11:01am

132. Splitters, you blame the representatives, but it's the voters fault!!! It is no accident that some districts have representatives like Barney Frank, Sheila Jackson, Jim McDermott, and other districts have Liebermans and Salazars. Splitters, you make it sound as though America has to be drugged and forced to vote for non-Liberals. How do you explain that actual Conservative Republicans get voted in, in alot of districts??? Americans VOTE; Representatives REPRESENT. Splitters always want to give the voters a free pass. Americans are eailsy tricked into supporting a war, and you don't see the hatred in their hearts. Not all Americans want to kill Iranians. Liberals don't. But, alot of Conservatives and Moderates DO. Splitters, you ought to be condemning the American voters when they fall for Bush's lies. It is only because of hatred, that Americans are so easily duped with obvious lies into killing people who didn't attack us.

     Posted by conshame at 09/01/2007 @ 11:12am

133. A potential positive:

     Sheehan should publicize more which alternative plans she's supporting. I posted about this before, but when Reid brought Feingold's withdrawal bill to the floor as an amendment to an agriculture bill, with only a cloture vote as an indicator of where people stood -- purely symbolic and guaranteed to have too few votes -- Feingold didn't complain. He seemed to be happy. He said that it represented a big advance to even have that vote. The vote also put the Democratic presidential candidates who are in the Senate on the record, too. (I think HRC-Obama-Dodd voted with Feingold but I can't remember Biden.)

     So it's possible to bring meaningful-despite-failing bills to the floor, and hope a series of them will eventually help tip the scales. Since the Democrats came in in January we've had IIRC the House Resolution against the surge (passed), a similar Senate resolution (too few votes to win but still meaningful), the defeat of the Cochran amendment, the initial passage of timetables despite the veto threat, and the vote on Feingold's plan.

     Sheehan can publicize which other resolutions and withdrawal plans she'd support, whether or not they have the votes for passage. Since she's running to the left of Pelosi, presumably it will be a bill that not only has a withdrawal timeline, but also closes the foreign military bases, terminates the Blackwater contracts, and prevents Bush from taking unilateral action in Iran. Even Feingold's plan didn't have some of these items.

     Posted by RLawrence at 09/01/2007 @ 11:20am

134. The opponents of Sheehan's run aren't just irrationally obstinate; you seem addicted to the status quo, no matter how bad it is.

     Posted by ZERO 08/31/2007 @ 11:49am | ignore this person

     ZERO I wish we could all just unite against Bush, but these ultimatums, either you support this strategy or you're with Bush. It has to be impeachment, that's the only strategy. It's accusations, you level these accusations against good Americans. "You're with Bush." Or Cindy Sheehan: "The Nation magazine is with Bush". "The Nation magazine is for the war". YES SHE DID SAY THAT. Naderites have been accusing Good Liberal Americans of being with the Authoritarian Idiots for decades. YOU GOT TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH I HATE BUSH AND HIS STUPID IDEOLOGY, CALLED CONSERVATISM. I do not like being told that I am equal to Bush, by the likes of Cindy Sheehan and her following. I do not like being called equal to a Republican. "Either you're for impeachment or you're with Bush". Bullshhit, it's a strategy debate, we all HATE Bush - except maybe you but speaking for myself I hate him. Why? Because he is killing Americans, getting rid of the bill of rights, squandering our power which should be used for good.

     Posted by conshame at 09/01/2007 @ 11:27am

135. LR,

     I cncur. If Sheehan can motivate more people to call their congress people to move to stop the war and the creation of more war, she'd be serving our nation the best.

     She gets better, more useful publicity for the cause-- if she's for some specific legislation than if she's simply against all politicians.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 11:30am

136. er, concur

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 11:33am

137. If it shows minority support for the war (49% or less), you'll say it's not "Fair and Balanced"...if it shows majority support, you will.

     Simple as that. You cannot accept the majority of the public don't approve of this war.

     Posted by MASK 08/31/2007 @ 7:43pm

     I'm not sure why YOU can't get to the essence of my comments! I even mentioned the Dem pols using a legitimte strategy to avoid blame if Iraq fell apart!!!!

     My contentions is the "70% Disapproval of War" (you cling to w/dear life) as NOT being legitimate, furthermore, my POV is well supported by the way Congress, Dem controlled--as I hammer you over the head with, has voted FOR war funding.

     The second major POV I expressed, the desire for a later poll "For the good of the country", is based on the assumption that IF it is well structured, AND IF there is majority opinion (FOR your side, even a large majority) to get out regardless, then the pols--particularly the Blue Dogs & wavering GOPs--will actually believe in said poll and force Bush's hands! From my standpoint, won't hurt my feelings AT ALL if the Dems shut down the Iraq War...and if Iraq turns really ugly, the Right will have a huge CLUB to put away in the closet to be used as needed in the future...and you know, it will be used!

     As to whether I can or "cannot accept the majority of the public don't approve of this war" at that time, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans now, does it? To me, the Mission WAS accomplished when Saddam was taken down and no major WMDs were found!

     Now, have I clarified enough to your satisfaction, MASKed one?

     Posted by Happy at 09/01/2007 @ 11:49am

138. CS,

     I am for both stopping the war, its spreading and also impeachment. They work together like peanut-butter and jelly.

     There is no conflict nor do they supercede congress passing other needed legislation. That's an ahistorical myth. The congress got a lot of work done in spite of investigating and voting on articles of impeachment on Nixon.

     This myth was born from a do-nothing corrupt repub congress that was and is now as a minority being obstructionists to anything progressing towards opposing hsuB/cHeney inititives to perpetuate continued war and corruption.

     Thus I push amap for both, stopping the war and impeachment-- as equally as I can.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 11:52am

139. More Than 1,800 Iraqis Killed in August

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070901/iraq/

     And only 1%, if that, were al-Qaida created in Iraq...

     How successful was this stratedy of going into Iraq ever, when al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan has been getting stronger as our troops and equipment, economy are being depleated, exhausted, maimed and killed. Clearly the hsuB/cHeney admin-- are not our nation's freinds. hsuB/cHeney are only frieinds of big corporate bud war profiteers .

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 12:11pm

140. er, strategy

     musta mixed up with tragedy

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 12:14pm

141. Zero-People do not have to support who you support or be deemed part of the establishment.Many of us believe that Nader/Sheehan would be worse than what we have now.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/01/2007 @ 1:00pm

142. Their only plan was for oil and bud profit.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/01/2007 @ 10:23am

     if they wanted that, they would have invaded canada.

     oops, almost forgot the water.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 1:05pm

143. Yeah, The Nation needs to do an article on Al, pre his announcement to run.

     http://www.draftgore.com/

     http://tinyurl.com/ywvzhb

     http://tinyurl.com/2toyg6

     http://tinyurl.com/2rdeuo

     http://tinyurl.com/2b23n5

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 1:05pm

144. http://tinyurl.com/2tb97k

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 1:06pm

145. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/01/2007 @ 1:05pm

     OK, ok, I should have stated 'crony' and not 'bud'... my bad.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 1:08pm

146. Saddam was taken down and no major WMDs were found!

     Posted by HAPPY 09/01/2007 @ 11:49am

     somewhat oxymoronic, don't you think.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 1:09pm

147. The ultimate truth I suppose of human nature is that we all know who is buttering our bread for us, and buttered bread is always the highest priority.

     Posted by ZERO 09/01/2007 @ 12:37pm

     but what happnens when that bread falls on the floor, butter-side down?

     BTW have you read "the Butter Battle Book" by theodor seuss geisel?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 1:12pm

148. Clooney: Obama's Like a Rock Star

     "But with more than a year until the election, Clooney also said he liked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards _ and pondered whether former Vice President Al Gore might vie for the presidency again.

     Clooney _ who said he made "Syriana" and "Good Night, and Good Luck," out of anger that he was labeled a traitor for questioning the decision to go to war _ told reporters he thinks change is coming.

     He said he believes Americans are now in the process of fixing the mistakes of the last few years.

     Fixing things, "that's what Americans have been really good at," he said."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 1:18pm

149. If Sheehan were making a movie to draw attention to the corruption and tragedy that is Iraq, what would it be titled?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 1:23pm

150. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/01/2007 @ 1:18pm

     opa!

     quoting clooney--expect the venom to be sprat on thee, real quick!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2007 @ 1:26pm

151. Well I can sprat right back...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 1:28pm

152. Well, don't look now Ms. Pollit, but you ARE a yellow dog Democrat. Didn't you shill for warmonger Kerry back in 04? And your whole argument says don't run if you can't win today. Which is the Dem line.

     Posted by afalsafi at 09/01/2007 @ 2:17pm

153. I'm still waiting for a Sheehan supporter to post.All we have,so far,are people making generalized arguments against Pelosi,but no Sheehan supporters.Lots of pointless rhetoric,but no Sheehan supporters.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/01/2007 @ 2:32pm

154. Ah:

     If Bush was president during the Cuban Missile Crisis. . . we would all be dead.

     Diplomacy is much more useful and effective than war, but you can't tell the GOP that anymore. They apparently only know half of Teddy Roosevelt's famous quote "Speak softly and carry a big stick" (I'm sure you can guess which half).

     Submitted by ilyich on August 31, 2007 - 1:58pm

     http://www.airamerica.com/node/5018#comment-237707

     And hsuB says, "Speak sophly and carry a big Dick"

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 3:15pm

155. Posted by I'M NOBODY 09/01/2007 @ 2:32pm

     Apart from stating that Sheehan is doing her part to put attention on the issue of stopping the Iraq war, what would you suggest could be seen as supporting Sheehan?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 3:24pm

156. HSUBFOOLS-I'm trying to find someone who can tell me what her position on health care,infrastructure etc are.I'm curious as to how she would have voted differently than Pelosi on bills that have come before the house.It seems that no one knows anything about her except for her stand on these two issues,but impeachment will have no relevance come 2009 so her position on the other issues is what is relevant.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/01/2007 @ 3:30pm

157. Global Research, August 30, 2007

     International Atomic Energy Agency - 2007-08-21

     Global Research Editorial Note

     The mainstream media has failed to report the agreement reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Iranian government in regards to the Iranian nuclear energy program. An understanding has been reached between the two. The IAEA has given Iran's nuclear program a clean bill of health.

     Why is the U.S. media not reporting on this matter? Why do the U.S. and its Western allies continue to threaten Iran with punitive bombings for its alleged non-compliance, when everything indicates that Iran has a bona fide nuclear energy program and does not have the capabilities of developing nuclear weapons?

     The following are highlights from the document:

     Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

     Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

     Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

     Emphasis added

     The Director-General of the IAEA has also confirmed in an interview published by Profil, an Austrian magazine that it is highly unlikely that Iran would pursue the development of a nuclear weapons program.

     The document is a slap in the face for the Bush Administration. In light of these developments, it is no surprise that the Washington is now seeking to justify military action on the grounds that Iran is allegedly behind the killings of American troops in Iraq.

     The fact of the matter is that the U.S. and its Coaltion partners, as confirmed by several reports, are in an "advanced state of readiness" to wage a military operation directed against Iran. What they now require is a new fabricated pretext which portrays Iran, in the eyes of public opinion, as a threat to world peace.

     The Western media bears a heavy burden of responsibility in the current wave of disinformation regarding Iran.

     Global Research, 30 August 2007

     http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6655

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 3:35pm

158. Posted by I'M NOBODY 09/01/2007 @ 3:30pm

     Yeah Frita jumped all over me for stating something similar as dems are getting more and more votes in support of stronger anti-war bills and for impeachment. Thus Sheehan would need other issues in order to persue running when these issues are resolved. However currently, I like the her added preassure on congress to move further, faster towards stopping the 'war movement' of the hsub/cHeney admin and their new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, and their fellow crony corporate war profiteers.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 3:43pm

159. HSUBFools-Unfortunately,the Democrats will not fear her and won't do anything differently because she is running.An activist can be a one issue person,but a politician can't be if they want to be taken seriously.Sadly,the Bobby Kennedys and Martin Luther Kings get murdered and we're stuck with the ones know one cares about or fears.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/01/2007 @ 3:51pm

160. Just a thought, but wouldn't a dem Gore / Clinton, and Gore / Obama to a lesser extent, be like a ticket electing 4 executives!?! Where a repub Gulie / McCave or Thompsom / Ronmey to an even greater extent, be a ticket of two halfs and thus only getting barely even one executive, if that much... yet again!?!?! EYuk.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 4:03pm

161. Yet she may motivate another that dems in power do fear! Or still yet she may be the lowly 'straw that breaks the camels back'. I'll not poopoo her if only for that.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 4:09pm

162. Just a thought, but wouldn't a dem Gore/Clinton, or Gore/Obama to a lesser extent, be like a ticket electing 4 executives!?! Where a repub Gulie/McCave or Thompsom/Ronmey to an even greater extent, be a ticket of two halfs and thus barely only getting even one iffy executive, if that much... yet again!?!?! EYuk;>))

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/01/2007 @ 4:12pm

163. Posted by MASK 09/01/2007 @ 08:40am | ignore this person

     " and you, like a Moonie who doesn't admit they're a Moonie until they've suckered you in for a "weekend meeting", are a LaRouche cultist who is trying to hide that fact, because you know the reaction you'd get here (and anywhere actually"

     You start something, a continuing stream of snide infantile remarks, whatever the subject, for weeks, refuse to stop, then start jackass whining when you begin to reap what you've rightfully sown ...

     I posted something from the source you would disparage, and challenged you, to come with something better, from any source. I did so, not only because it was directly related to the subject at hand, but so all could see what a fraud you are. There it is, what is it about the writing in my last post above, that would make your bullshit comments valid? That is perhaps the most eloquent, factually founded, historically accurate, enlightening, intelligent, dissertation on the true concept, of the general welfare as it regards our constitution, extent. The first time, doubtless, anyone else heard it stated such. You couldn't touch it, are incapable of coming anywhere near it. Were it anyone else I would say that you seemingly can not grasp why I would refute your lies. But you are so corrupt you know better, attempt to "swiftboat," and disparage, in any case.

     "Name 2-3 things you DISAGREE with LaRouche on....if you can't, that speaks for itself!"

     It is not that I cannot, it is that I will not, that I refuse to do so. I consider someone who would gleefully lie on the subject of the Jewish Holocaust in order to ignorantly attempt to smear someone, beneath me. Unworthy of debate, and only to be given attention so as to challenge further foolishness. You're not retarded, and you would have to be not to understand that, from what I've written on this nonsense. I've told you my position in regards to you, and why. There is no ambiguity in either. If you wish no further insults from me, leave me the phuk alone.

     Posted by V at 09/01/2007 @ 4:18pm

164. Posted by MASK 09/01/2007 @ 08:40am | ignore this person

     " and you, like a Moonie who doesn't admit they're a Moonie until they've suckered you in for a "weekend meeting", are a LaRouche cultist who is trying to hide that fact, because you know the reaction you'd get here (and anywhere actually"

     You start something, a continuing stream of snide infantile remarks, whatever the subject, for weeks, refuse to stop, then start jackass whining when you begin to reap what you've rightfully sown ...

     I posted something from the source you would disparage, and challenged you, to come with something better, from any source. I did so, not only because it was directly related to the subject at hand, but so all could see what a fraud you are. There it is, what is it about the writing in my last post above, that would make your bullshit comments valid? That is perhaps the most eloquent, factually founded, historically accurate, enlightening, intelligent, dissertation on the true concept, of the general welfare as it regards our constitution, extent. The first time, doubtless, anyone else heard it stated such. You couldn't touch it, are incapable of coming anywhere near it. Were it anyone else I would say that you seemingly can not grasp why I would refute your lies. But you are so corrupt you know better, attempt to "swiftboat," and disparage, in any case.

     "Name 2-3 things you DISAGREE with LaRouche on....if you can't, that speaks for itself!"

     It is not that I cannot, it is that I will not, that I refuse to do so. I consider someone who would gleefully lie on the subject of the Jewish Holocaust in order to ignorantly attempt to smear someone, beneath me. Unworthy of debate, and only to be given attention so as to challenge further foolishness. You're not retarded, and you would have to be not to understand that, from what I've written on this nonsense. I've told you my position in regards to you, and why. There is no ambiguity in either. If you wish no further insults from me, leave me the phuk alone.

     Posted by V at 09/01/2007 @ 4:19pm

165. It is not that I cannot, it is that I will not, that I refuse to do so. ----Posted by V 09/01/2007 @ 4:18pm

     Translation "Uh, uh, I can...I just don't want to!"

     V, you call me a liar over and over, yet you can disprove YOUR lying with the easiest of things.

     Name 2-3 things you DISAGREE with Maximum Leader Lyndon on...and you've proven your claim to "free thinker" true...and my supposition that you are a LYM cultist false. Period.

     Of course if you do, and still are a follower of LL, you risk that being thrown back in your face...or WORSE revealed to the "Purity Committee" or whatever internal secret police LaRouche runs to make sure nobody breaks ranks.

     Otherwise, you're the liar....and you're pissed because your "secret identity" has been revealed...and the longer you drag this out the more the proof of it piles up.

     You are no "free thinker"....you're a political cultist of Lyndon H. LaRouche, perennial candidate for President and certifible wacko.

     Posted by Mask at 09/01/2007 @ 10:37pm

166. Posted by MASK 09/01/2007 @ 10:37pm | ignore this person

     You're not retarded you're insane, and tragically, just not that bright in a way that reminds one of G Dubya, your (lunatic, hall of mirrors) "surge" being just as effective. In any case you're now feeding on yourself, and are the only one who has reached the suppositions you spew, trust me. I don't know which of us has made a bigger fool of you in this thread, and don't care, but trust me that is the only context in which you've won anything. You have my leave, rant what you will, you're still dismissed. Being this near to such insanity makes me want to take a bath, as though I've been bushed with something unclean.

     Posted by V at 09/01/2007 @ 11:26pm

167. "An activist can be a one issue person,but a politician can't be if they want to be taken seriously."

     Ms Sheehan, if you read the first blog on this issue by Katha wherein I posted her speech on this subject, is running on more than one issue.

     "Sadly,the Bobby Kennedys and Martin Luther Kings get murdered and we're stuck with the ones know one cares about or fears."

     Knowing this and you, us ... not stepping up to the plate to fill the vacuum, justifies those murders, the ends, being achieved ... Upon the King, and none other?

     Posted by I'M NOBODY 09/01/2007 @ 3:51pm | ignore this perso

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/01/2007 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person,

     Yes, if only for that. But stick around if you will, the rest of this post relates somewhat, to you too.

     "I am personally beginning to believe that the best thing for me personally is to simply quit caring and divorce myself from any form of involvement with this stupid, fucked up, hopeless system.

     Posted by ZERO 09/01/2007 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person"

     The problem isn't the status quo, there will by definition of the term always be one. Surely the calculus of misrule has, what, giving up in despair? As a term of its equation? The real problem as I said is not the status quo. The real problem is that you were beaten, beaten, before Cindy even announced her candidacy. The conditioning you have internalized is present in your thoughts, words, and since it had to reach, and be expressed by your finger tips, in order for me to know of it, is now, encroaching even upon your actions. You don't see it, but the clue is sufficiently bright as to be blinding, and it's this; you're not in the minority ....

     This reminds me of a few things, remember the part in the Wizard of Oz when they had reached the poppy fields? The Emerald City, was in plain view when the spell that was cast (whose impetus was the distance they had already reached) began to work, remember?

     You're in the majority, yet by your words, you are defeated, how is this? Every poll, every time this issue has come up the people who share your expressed views, in a cause that is just, therefore the better one, the undefeated one, are in the majority. Yet you see the cause as already lost, how so? That is the question I have been asking and never receiving an answer to. Zero you know how this feels, to if you would, before you go, could you answer it for me?

     Or if you would stay awhile we could measure the geometry of the solution space, as surely there is one. So as to effect the needed change, from here. As they, as the recent evidence shows, fear this place in cyber space too, do they not? There must be a reason for their fear, it should be found and exploited, yes?

     Posted by V at 09/01/2007 @ 11:29pm

168. I apologize, not to Mask. But to the supreme being of the universe, for not giving sufficient thought to a better way of proving, a still valid point, of a still valid stand. I had waited for Mask to be less spiteful and less hateful, not to me, but to others, so as to find some measure of compassion for him, and move on. He is, as you can see, not a person that allows such. I will not be moved, and am not giving an inch, but satisfaction notwithstanding as I did but howsoever forcefully, defend myself, I take no pleasure in what he has reduced himself to. I do know there is a human being behind the persona he presents. And that strangely, he did even so, cause a measure of compassion, it just wont be shown in the way he gets his back side handed to him if he continues ...

     Posted by V at 09/02/2007 @ 12:00am

169. After sitting through and participating in many discussions/debates on what tactics and strategies are best, I have decided that we pretty much engage in the approaches that best suit our temperaments. If someone wants to run a losing challenge against the Speaker, I say let them do it and get on with whatever action you want to take. As near as I can tell it takes all kinds of actions to make change happen and I don't think anyone has the crystal ball that will tell us which ones are THE right ones at any given point. This leftie infighting about tactics is a tedious waste of time.

     Posted by Slade at 09/02/2007 @ 12:29am

170. Posted by V 09/02/2007 @ 12:00am

     MASK gets in everybody's hair.....but you two are on a unique MAO (Mutually Assured Obsession) path!

     I'm a bit curious, you're often in some altered mental state when you blog here, right? The style that comes to mind is `slurred' theatrical speech...except in typed words!

     I know, just killing time....off to bed!

     Posted by Happy at 09/02/2007 @ 12:37am

171. Posted by HAPPY 09/02/2007 @ 12:37am | ignore this person

     LoL, I'll just say he starts and started it, with me being sufficiently irascible enough, to have a will to finish it.

     "I'm a bit curious, you're often in some altered mental state when you blog here, right? The style that comes to mind is `slurred' theatrical speech...except in typed words!"

     If repose classifies as altered, then yes. And believe it or not this, sans slur, to my ear at least, is how I speak. I think it comes from my childhood ... in the city wherein I spent my childhood, the cultural center ironically abutted the low wage-working class, heart of same. I lived (read: cut school, I only showed up to get my books, and on test days) in the hidden places of the museums, and symphony hall. As I grew older I ended up knowing the history and story behind every coin, painting, statue and artifact. Rather than a juke joint, I read my books, comic, and text, to the sounds of Bach. It was a well rounded, unique, second to none, educational experience, I highly recommend it.

     Posted by V at 09/02/2007 @ 01:50am

172. Posted by RLAWRENCE 09/01/2007 @ 11:20am

     all good points,

     however, there are other issues of concern besides iraq.

     how would ms. sheehan be able to handle the myriad of other problems facing the 20th century human?

     one trick (however important that trick may be) ponies don't put much food on the table.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:03am

173. Well I can sprat right back...

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/01/2007 @ 1:28pm

     i just woke up my poor wife (pbuh) laughing at your spratitude

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:06am

174. Ah:

     If Bush was ['had been'--sorry, taught esl for 8 years] president during the Cuban Missile Crisis. . . we would all be dead.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/01/2007 @ 3:15pm

     ??????????, ?? ???????? ?? ????????

     (god damn times new roman!!--that said "actually we would be speaking russian, written in cyrillic)

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:13am

175. IAEA etc.,

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/01/2007 @ 3:35pm

     what the heck do these goddamn international types know, anyway?

     hell, they looked for them wmds in iraq for 7 [commondreams.org] years and didn't find a thing.

     how the hell you expect them to stop them ayatollahs from getting nukes?

     Posted by FAILED GEOGRAPHY 09/02/2007 @ 03:13am | ignore this person

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:25am

176. I am personally beginning to believe that the best thing for me personally is to simply quit caring and divorce myself from any form of involvement with this stupid, fucked up, hopeless system.

     Posted by ZERO 09/01/2007 @ 6:15pm

     whoa, dude

     what are ya gonna do, watch reruns of hogan's heros all day long?

     your brain got you into this mess because your heart told it to. ain't no turnin' back.........

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:31am

177. Posted by V 09/01/2007 @ 11:29pm

     whoa dude

     that's great!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:36am

178. Rather than a juke joint, I read my books, comic, and text, to the sounds of Bach (and zeppelin, c'mon dude). It was a well rounded, unique, second to none, educational experience, I highly recommend it.

     Posted by V 09/02/2007 @ 01:50am

     been there, done that :::•}

     and now, my son does the same thing listening to 3 louis ['loo-eez'] (armstrong, prima, jordan) and, of course coltrane [michalevy.com]

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 03:49am

179. Lol, as I said, that was during school hours. When I got home, I wore out the vinyl on my Jimi Hendrix, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Yes, Zappa, Tangerine Dream, and Funkadelics (Maggot Brain is still ahead of its time, if you ask me) records.

     Posted by V at 09/02/2007 @ 04:45am

180. wore out the vinyl on my Jimi Hendrix, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Yes, Zappa, Tangerine Dream, and Funkadelics (Maggot Brain is still ahead of its time, if you ask me) records.

     Posted by V 09/02/2007 @ 04:45am

     that's why you're awake at 4:45 am, now.

     ain't no turnin' back.

     did you check out the coltrane link? supreme.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 05:05am

181. did you check out the coltrane link? supreme.

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/02/2007 @ 05:05am | ignore this person

     The link fit the time, perfectly, thanx. Much.

     Posted by V at 09/02/2007 @ 06:18am

182. V, tell ya what....

     off-topic, but simply requiring a short answer from you...

     What do you think of the "theory" of global warming?

     Posted by Mask at 09/02/2007 @ 08:24am

183. What do you think of the "theory" of global warming?

     Posted by MASK 09/02/2007 @ 08:24am | ignore this person

     it's a hot topic.

     Posted by V 09/02/2007 @ 01:11pm | ignore this person

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2007 @ 1:11pm

184. "it's a hot topic."----Posted by V 09/02/2007 @ 01:11pm

     Yes it is, V. Which is why I'm curious as to your view.

     Do you believe that A. global warming is happening...and B. that is in part or in whole caused by man-made activities (autos, industries, power plants, etc.)?

     Certainly there's no harm in answering that...uh...is there?

     Posted by Mask at 09/02/2007 @ 1:54pm

185. Aw, most people will just vote for Al and try not to worry about it that much... until they have to anyway.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/02/2007 @ 5:15pm

186. V, tell ya what....

     off-topic, but simply requiring a short answer from you...

     What do you think of the "theory" of global warming?

     Posted by MASK 09/02/2007 @ 08:24am | ignore this person

     "V, tell ya what...."

     You can tell me nothing. You're willing to feed off negative attention and pity, both, I see. What is this, wit? A brilliant tactical move on your part, or are you simply off your meds? Mask, self dignity, would have made you stop before you reached this level of pathos.

     "Certainly there's no harm in answering that...uh...is there?"

     I've given you far, far, too much of my attention, you will have to wallow in the mud, and other excreta, on your own from now on. To have it reach the bottom of my shoe is enough for yours truly. To answer your question would be an abomination to me. I guess to you that statement is mere, hint?

     "I consider someone who would gleefully lie on the subject of the Jewish Holocaust in order to ignorantly attempt to smear someone, beneath me. Unworthy of debate, and only to be given attention so as to challenge further foolishness."

     ...

     Posted by V at 09/02/2007 @ 6:27pm

187. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/02/2007 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person

     Lol, almost had me wondering when I said that.

     Posted by V at 09/02/2007 @ 6:33pm

188. Ok, bottom line--- hsuB/cHeney never learn. They're all crony, all profiteering off others death and misery, all the time.

     If hsuB had even learned his dry-drunk's prayer right, we'd all be in better shape: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

     We fund and use hospitals even though people continue to get sick and die from medical concerns, because we know the difference between what we can fix and what we can't.

     We stopped slavery, increased rights to women and minorities, repealed prohibition, left Vietnam, didn't go to 'real/hot' war against Russia or China or Cuba, ... They all required wisdom to make the right choice.

     Can anyone not doubt the lack of most, if not all levels, of what one can define as wisdom-- and this lack of wisdom has been proven over and over again by the hsuB/cHeney admin.

     Drunks without this wisdom continue to lie to themselves and to others in order to continue drinking. Enablers ignore, conflate truth with lies or apologize to others for the lies of the addicts they're supporting.

     In what universe can one believe any information by way of the hsuB/cHeney admin about them continuing their addictions-- obtaining yet another hit of Iraq?

     What's the wisest first step to stopping hsuB/cHeney from their addiction?

     Intervention.

     Congressional intervention- the people's house.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/02/2007 @ 6:34pm

189. Posted by V 09/02/2007 @ 6:27pm

     V....we BOTH know why you won't comment on global warming.

     Don't we?

     Posted by Mask at 09/02/2007 @ 9:23pm

190. "Draper writes that Bush was "gassed" after an 80-minute bike ride at his Crawford, Tex., ranch on the day before Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast and was largely silent during a subsequent video briefing from then-FEMA Director Michael D. Brown and other top officials making preparations for the storm.

     He also reports that the president took an informal poll of his top advisers in April 2006 on whether to fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld."

     http://tinyurl.com/2a374k

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2007 @ 02:55am

191. MASK:

     Regarding global warming...

     You said to V:

     Do you believe that A. global warming is happening...and B. that is in part or in whole caused by man-made activities (autos, industries, power plants, etc.)?

     My response:

     Since V really doesn't like you, and is reticent to answer, I'll throw in my two coppers.

     In response to your question, your part A is an obvious. Global warming is occurring. There's no question. The empirical data show that the surface of the earth is, in fact, warming, and at an alarming rate.

     Part B is a little trickier. I have given a lot of thought to this, and honestly, whether humans are at fault or not (I happen to believe we are, in part, to blame, most certainly) is an irrelevancy. What is most important is the answer to part A. And since we know that the surface temperature of the earth is rising, and to potentially catastrophic levels, there is a necessity to try to remedy this. It we don't, our way of life, all over the planet, will be drastically, and most likely irrevocably, different.

     The question you SHOULD be asking, MASK, because I know you don't believe that global warming is as critical as many of us here believe is, what if you're wrong? And even more importantly, can we AFFORD for you to be wrong?

     The short answers are, we're fucked, and no, respectively.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/03/2007 @ 11:26am

192. Yeah Conyers speaks finally:

     http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7045631199028588216

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2007 @ 12:19pm

193. http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_5402

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2007 @ 12:33pm

194. it's a hot topic.

     Posted by V 09/02/2007 @ 01:11pm | ignore this person

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/02/2007 @ 1:11pm

     i stole that line from my dad (pbuh).

     he served a stint as p.r. dude for the local police. when asked about a rash of bar-b-que (from the caribe language) thefts by the town paper, he replied "well apparently, they're a hot item this year".

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2007 @ 1:13pm

195. Certainly there's no harm in answering that...uh...is there?

     Posted by MASK 09/02/2007 @ 1:54pm

     SIR MASCOT, SIR,

     (as i have urged previously).

     instead of dogging the V-MAN about global warming, why don't you state what YOU think about it?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2007 @ 1:17pm

196. Counterpunch.Org today has an excellent post by Naderite Joshua Frank, in which he excoriates... The Green Party. For not behaving the way it would if he ran it. An Excellent article, it proves once again that Naderites are the enemy of the Green Party. Nader came in with his herd of followers who believed Gore=Bush, and off they go, refused. Hurray for the Greens, who do not want to be associated as a spoiler movement - but instead choose to return to their roots of trying to abolish the banking system - I hope they win.

     Posted by conshame at 09/03/2007 @ 1:36pm

197. Karl Rove - RESIGNED

     Alberto Gonzales - RESIGNED

     CINDY SHEEHAN - RESIGNED

     Are you a Republican or a Republican Assistant? If so, resign.

     Posted by conshame at 09/03/2007 @ 1:39pm

198. Nader = Bush

     Sheehan = Bush

     Naderites = Republicans

     (this is what's known as a dose of your own medicine with a touch of truth to it)

     Posted by conshame at 09/03/2007 @ 1:57pm

199. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/03/2007 @ 11:26am | ignore this person

     instead of dogging the V-MAN about global warming, why don't you state what YOU think about it?

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/03/2007 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person

     He is not genuinely, therefore not really asking, about Global Warming, it's a rather simple minded switch of tactics of an even simpler minded supposition. That even if I hadn't told him, ostensibly, to fuck off weeks ago. I find so insulting to the principle of intelligence I doubt I would have answered him in any case.

     My response to the question, in regards to my take on Global Warming, is to say learn the science, both pro and con. To take responsibility for your knowledge. That way, you'll acquire the full range of inputs wherein to base your questions to the system so derived. This will allow you to weigh the various outputs and garner your answers from nature directly.

     I'm taking a break from my labours as I am, we are, in fact, in the process of moving an (aerospace engineering) lab to a new location. In one sense it doesn't make a difference, in that we must initiate and increase the use of green technologies wether global warming is caused by us nor not. As we live in a parts per billion universe, and so as to help mitigate the negative impact we have allowed to occur, through ignorance, and greed, on the biosphere. Children being born sans parts of their nervous systems, being sufficient impetus for me to be an active participant in the field, wither or no global warming even exists. After discerning a multi-use capability for certain of our processes. I made the decision to spin some of them off, as they have in their realm, proven to be very effective green technologies.

     Posted by V at 09/03/2007 @ 3:55pm

200. Posted by RESE 09/02/2007 @ 10:48pm | ignore this person

     If the question is allowed to be transformed from could she could win, to, she should win. And the responsibility is not abstracted away to someone else's shoulders. I think she will.

     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

     The above dims my view further of the credibility of associating virtue, with the critical faculties of those who would beg to differ. Pelosi, her keepers of the gates, and their politics may in the end, damn us all ...

     Posted by V at 09/03/2007 @ 4:20pm

201. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/03/2007 @ 11:26am

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/03/2007 @ 1:17pm

     FROSTY, JORCH....I think it's happening and I think mankind is contributing to it, maybe completely causing it. There, how's that for throwing you for a loop. The question always becomes, what is the cost/benefit analysis of RADICAL steps to end GW.

     Now...notice Posted by V 09/03/2007 @ 3:55pm, Re-read what he said, apart from rhetorical mish-mash did V answer whether HE thinks it's happening or man-made?

     No...and why is that?

     Because Lyndon LaRouche is a GW denier, as are his followers...as much as Limbaugh or Hannity.

     Ask him yourself...you WILL not get a straight answer, because V knows that will KILL his rep here at a liberal blog, but he can't go against Maximum Leader Lyndon either!

     Posted by Mask at 09/03/2007 @ 7:21pm

202. Posted by MASK 09/03/2007 @ 7:21pm

     no loop thrown. i expected that answer.

     i used to read these posts without posting here myself for a long time. i would read your posts and think "what an idiot" or "the nation's gotta be payin' this dude to drive all the other posters crazy".

     one day you wrote something more reasonable and i replied (i think for the first time), "mask, welcome to earth".

     while commenting on the posts of others is a big part of this ....... (what is this, anyway?), the best stuff is when someone just says how they feel about topic x. it makes others think.

     it's good that you want to keep people from lying or contradicting or whatever other folly we get trapped into. i do, however, feel that when it becomes the ends rather than the means, the purpose of these discussions gets lost.

     it's good to know that when i post something, you will be there to point out inaccuracies in facts or logic.

     if v likes larouche, that's o.k (for him). if hsubfools obsesses about impeachment (i know, off the table), so be it. even rese or plunger (¿neighbours?).

     BTW i caught RIO BRAVO plagiarizing nonsense about the prophet mohammed from a website called "the prophet of doom". yet i don't bring that up each time i try to destroy the insanity that he writes. he knew he'd been caught. that was enough.

     just thinking.

     FZ

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2007 @ 8:54pm

203. Precisely what other potentially-effective action is being prevented by Cindy Sheehan running (unsuccessfully, to be sure) against Nancy Pelosi? Because Cindy is collecting campaign donations, someone isn't going to march in a protest that Washington DC would ignore anyway?

     In order to have a convincing argument against Cindy Sheehan's running, you have to have some *other* option that would actually accomplish something!

     The electoral politics of theater is what the left has left.

     Everything else just ends up putting Tweedledee in Tweedledum's place, as we have seen *again* in 2007! What a horrible year it has been... Bush is one of the most loathed Presidents ever. Yet we have seen escalation of the war and expansion of the power of the executive to spy on us and bring us more needless wars. The country is going to hell in a handbasket. Better to make a theatrical protest than to send another $100 to Tweedledee Pelosi's campaign!

     Posted by masussman at 09/03/2007 @ 9:21pm

204. Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee

     Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee,

     Resolved to have a battle,

     For Tweedle-Dum said Tweedle-Dee,

     Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

     Just then flew by a monstrous crow,

     As big as a tar barrel,

     Which frightened both the heroes so,

     They quite forgot the battle.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2007 @ 9:31pm

205. You have deleted a recent comment of mine pointing out the pettiness of Pollit, who "scraped the bottom of the barrel" by scoffing with vetero-feminist contempt at Sheehan for using the word "stridently". I also included a link to google with thousands of instances where the adverb was used to characterize male behavior.

     It was a RELEVANT comment directly referring to the contents of her article and made no personal attacks, just strong criticism of what she wrote.

     And you wonder why progressivism in America has sunk to the bottom of the bottomless pit? Ad majora!

     Posted by chinpoko at 09/03/2007 @ 10:11pm

206. You have deleted a recent comment of mine pointing out the pettiness of Pollit, who "scraped the bottom of the barrel" by scoffing with vetero-feminist contempt at Sheehan for using the word "stridently". I also included a link to google with thousands of instances where the adverb was used to characterize male behavior.

     It was a RELEVANT comment directly referring to the contents of her article and made no personal attacks, just strong criticism of what she wrote.

     And you wonder why progressivism in America has sunk to the bottom of the bottomless pit? Ad majora!

     Posted by chinpoko at 09/03/2007 @ 10:13pm

207. You have deleted a recent comment of mine pointing out the pettiness of Pollit, who "scraped the bottom of the barrel" by scoffing with vetero-feminist contempt at Sheehan for using the word "stridently". I also included a link to google with thousands of instances where the adverb was used to characterize male behavior.

     It was a RELEVANT comment directly referring to the contents of her article and made no personal attacks, just strong criticism of what she wrote.

     And you wonder why progressivism in America has sunk to the ...bottom of the pit? Ad majora!

     Posted by chinpoko at 09/03/2007 @ 10:29pm

208. And once again you pull it, Pollit-- the necrotized little politically correct stunt of judging a person based on the use of words arbitarily included in a "gotcha!" list. Which is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Run a search on google and you'll find out how frequently "stridently" is used with reference to males. The bottom line is that Sheehan acts, whereas you pillars of the...nation blabber while spinning in a self-referential orbit.

     Posted by CHINPOKO 08/31/2007 @ 8:45pm | ignore this person

     do you mean that?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 12:28am

209. where's the link?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 12:29am

210. "if v likes larouche, that's o.k (for him).

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/03/2007 @ 8:54pm | ignore this person"

     Please and, thanks for the Coltrane, and what you said before ... but, like? Again thank you, but with all due respect, to cast the foundation of my some times use of Larouche as a source as "like," devolves what I truly stand for. Something is either true or it is not true, the source must be considered but to dismiss the truth because of propaganda, is to me incomprehensible. It is orders of magnitude worse, though failing all the while ... to do so in order to effect swine character assassination. Even more so after having been proved a liar on the issue. What I defended, without refutation, was, and is, the truth, the person was secondary.

     In mentioning "liberal rep" he mentions something I was not aware that I had, much less cared about. It being sufficiently peripheral, and superficial to consume Mask to te point of obsession, though. To me, such labels are for dilettantes, to give all the respect of my honesty. I would fight just as hard against being pigeon holed as a "liberal," though progressive almost fits, and I usually let Christian Humanist pass. It is good that he has come to his simple mined conclusion, in that now it can be proven in the negative that what he considers the end all, and be all, is something I could care less about.

     So, my friend if you must "like" someone to value what truths they may speak to power, such is life. Though if you can find something in the links I posted that is in error, please challenge me. As to Mask, I thought him paid too, from time to time the thought still crosses my mind. Have you ever heard him deny that he lied about the Jewish Holocaust, answer one of my questions, or prove a single point? No. So when you say, "it's good to know that when i post something, you will be there to point out inaccuracies in facts or logic." you give a lying, rabid, duplicitous, sophist, piece of shit far more credit than he deserves (though you are capable of irony). In any event, you are a far kinder, gentler soul than I.

     Posted by V at 09/04/2007 @ 01:29am

211. Posted by MASUSSMAN 09/03/2007 @ 9:21pm | ignore this person

     What you see is the "Iron Hand" removing itself from the "Velvet glove" the times being too critical, the slaves sufficiently broken, and stripped of legal protections to waste energy letting such pretensions stand.

     Actually it is my second to last post, the one with the link regarding the Iranian Strike Plans, that I wish had garnered comment, such is life ...

     Posted by V at 09/04/2007 @ 01:45am

212. From Larry Craig to Wesley Clark

     Assholes of the Week

     By PAUL KRASSNER

     *edit* I care could less about the Craig affair, so lets go to;

     *General Wesley Clark, for waiting until recently to reveal to Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" the following: "About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, 'Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second.' I said, 'Well, you're too busy.' He said, 'No, no.' He says, 'We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq.' This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, 'We're going to war with Iraq? Why?' He said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'I guess they don't know what else to do.' So I said, 'Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?' He said, 'No, no.' He says, 'There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.' He said, 'I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments.' And he said, 'I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.' So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, 'Are we still going to war with Iraq?' And he said, 'Oh, it's worse than that.' He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, 'I just got this from upstairs'--meaning the Secretary of Defense's office--"today." And he said, 'This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.' I said, 'Is it classified?' He said, 'Yes, sir.' I said, 'Well, don't show it to me.' And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, 'You remember that?' He said, 'Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!'"

     ...

     Link [counterpunch.org]

     Posted by V at 09/04/2007 @ 05:19am

213. From Larry Craig to Wesley Clark

     Assholes of the Week

     By PAUL KRASSNER

     *edit* I care could less about the Craig affair, so lets go to;

     *General Wesley Clark, for waiting until recently to reveal to Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" the following: "About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, 'Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second.' I said, 'Well, you're too busy.' He said, 'No, no.' He says, 'We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq.' This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, 'We're going to war with Iraq? Why?' He said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'I guess they don't know what else to do.' So I said, 'Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?' He said, 'No, no.' He says, 'There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.' He said, 'I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments.' And he said, 'I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.' So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, 'Are we still going to war with Iraq?' And he said, 'Oh, it's worse than that.' He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, 'I just got this from upstairs'--meaning the Secretary of Defense's office--"today." And he said, 'This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.' I said, 'Is it classified?' He said, 'Yes, sir.' I said, 'Well, don't show it to me.' And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, 'You remember that?' He said, 'Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!'"

     ...

     Link [counterpunch.org]

     Posted by V at 09/04/2007 @ 05:20am

214. "if v likes larouche, that's o.k (for him).

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/03/2007 @ 8:54pm | ignore this person"

     Please and, thanks for the Coltrane, and what you said before ... but, like?

     i have no idea who you get your inspiration from, brother (besides the music of the spheres)

     i was just trying to tell mask that it's ok for people to think different things and if he disagrees well that's fine, too as long as it doesn't go on and on.

     what i've read by you strikes me as rational.

     that's all.

     BTW my preferred label is "Human" (though my wife often wonders...........)

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 07:33am

215. 'I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.'

     i guess this is what happened in the u.s. congress for most of the bush administration.

     when the democrats took power i thought good things would happen without delay, but it just might be worse.

     BTW if this is true, why didn't general clark come forward years earlier. he could have saved thousands of lives. guess you gotta protect your friends.

     god, bless us all, please.

     oh shit.

     V, this is too much

     check out the democracy now transcript with clark here. [tinyurl.com]

     this fellow clark is real old school. for his to come out with this is something.

     but wait, there's more. check out the date on the transcript. Friday, March 2nd, 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what the fuck is going on? why isn't this everywhere?

     god, please don't bless us. come from the heavens and make this insanity stop. please.

     like my wife told me last night: "i used to get angry seeing what was happening in the world (bush, iraq, terrorism, etc.) but now, i just get sad, very sad"

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 08:01am

216. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/03/2007 @ 8:54pm

     FROSTY, I don't care if V is a LaRouche'ite. I care that he's LYING about it.

     If he was an honest out-in-the-open follower of Lyndon LaLoon, more power to him. Love to see a spirited debate on some of LL's positions on global warming, feminism, "Western culture", and YES, the Holocaust on which LaRouche said--

     "It is argued that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to 'Jewish survival' that any anti-Zionist is therefore not only an anti-Semite, but that any sort of criminal action is excusable against anti-Zionists in memory of the mythical 'six million Jewish victims' of the Nazi 'holocaust.'"

     "This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races", a small fraction of the tens of million of others -- especially Slavs -- who were murdered in the same way Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn proposes today. Even on a relative scale, what the Nazis did to Jewish victims was mild compared with the virtual extermination of Gypsies and the butchery of Communists."-----"New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism", New Solidarity, December 8, 1978

     Which is classic Holocaust denial, reduce the number killed to 1/6 and then claim it was due to "a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive 'appropriate technology'" It was gas chamber and ovens...it was just "hard work".

     But again, back to V....he CANNOT admit his true allegiance. Reason? LaRouche and his reputation. Plus some exceedingly NON-liberal views of he and his followers as noted. V would get raked over the coals if he posted his REAL view on global warming. Would sound like ZERO (another possible LaRouche'ite) when the topic of feminism came up. And would sound like Edward Teller if the topic of NUCLEAR POWER (another LaRoach fave) came up.

     See, I don't mind that he's a political cultist....I mind that he's a DISHONEST political cultist...heheh!

     Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 09:22am

217. Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 09:22am

     what have i gotten myself mixed up in? i feel like the UN on a really bad day--it's as if New Zealand and Sweden were at war.

     did you read the links he and i posted?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 09:32am

218. Yow...

     Still digging that hole, Ms Pollitt?

     Leave it be, you showed your cards. Now don't make it worse by taking us for fools.

     Posted by Lil at 09/04/2007 @ 10:36am

219. Note the framing in just this one line:

     "Her outraged and self-righteous response to my mild and polite posts make me wonder how she will withstand the rigors of political campaigning"

     Sheehan (and for that matter everyone else who took issue)is painted as "outraged and self-righteous", while Pollitt casts herself as " mild and polite".

     More of the same superior arrogance. By continuing to write about it, it is more than obvious that you are trying to fix it, but you only make it worse. So often, this is why the Left who recognizes fundamental class judgements as poison to a populist consciousness-shift - view the limoliberals with disdain. Their politics are a fashion statement and every once in a while they trip up and reveal themselves - only serving to reinforce the stereotype.

     Posted by Lil at 09/04/2007 @ 10:47am

220. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 09:32am

     Oooh, ooh, can I be New Zealand? Cute women and "Middle Earth"...much better than frozen waste and "creamy fish" dishes!

     1. As for V, again, ask the guy yourself sometime on those issues (global warming, feminism, etc.) Guarentee he won't deviate from the LaRouche brain-washing.

     2. As for Wesley Clark, a bit dubious of his political acumen. Google "Wesley Clark faster-than-light" and learn how he earned the nickname "Warp Drive Wes". Professional politics no place for folks who make amateur mistakes, regardless of how good a guy they are.

     Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 10:48am

221. Posted by LIL 09/04/2007 @ 10:47am

     Speaking of "cult of personality"....LIL, a question-

     "Maybe Katha Pollitt et al. should go to the Middle East and view the carnage that this Administration has caused with the complicity of the Democratic Party, which she so stridently defends."

     Do you think this is a fair and accurate depiction of what Katha Pollitt said or stands for?

     Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 10:49am

222. Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 10:48am

     i don't think any general is a good guy. THAT is an oxymoron.

     the important thing is what he says about the war plans in 2002

     and that goes way beyond any politics--'This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.'

     BTW sweden's got some pretty hot ladies, too (hot swedish ladies--¿another oxymoron?)

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 10:55am

223. "Because I express doubt that she will make much impression on the ballot box, and think that likelihood and its implications are worth discussing frankly..."

     "Frankly"....snotty.

     Now you activists know your place!!! And don't go intefering with the real work of our political class!! Get down!!! You don't have a chance! Now, stay in your place and lower your head with shame for not seeing how respectful and nice I was to you, while I help to beef up the opposition and DISDAIN of any inappropriate interlopers who would THINK to challenge and actually participate in our government. Now get yourself down and get out there on the streets and just maybe, if you are civil and don't push to hard and yell too loud, maybe you will get a crust tossed.

     Know your own damn place, Pollitt, and write about the NOW generation's fixation on politically correct terminology. After all, what did you win us other than abortion--(now being eroded away by centrist politicians the mainstream feminists orgs endorse) or the right to emulate the stupidity of man as liberation.

     Posted by Lil at 09/04/2007 @ 11:01am

224. Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 10:48am

     cool. warp drive ready. shields at phull. phire photon torpedos!!

     well, a bit of the wall but hey, people thought the world was phlat 500 years ago.

     remember, "laws" of physics are only theories and that we, as humans, see the universe the way it is because iph it were different we physically couldn't live here (think 2-dimensional digestive tract-won't work)

     in another 200 years or so another Newton or Einstein will come to light and who knows what he/she will figure out.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 11:06am

225. or the right to emulate the stupidity of man as liberation.

     Posted by LIL 09/04/2007 @ 11:01am

     i ain't stupid (did you mean "man" in the sense of human. if so, you called yourself stupid. are you human?)

     good point about activism. jesus was an activist and was told to shut up. guess the corporatacracy is a little stronger than the romans. all the more difficult.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 11:10am

226. Ah, yes, Mak--the Dem party board apologist, desperately clinging to his religion.

     Yeah, maybe she should. It struck me last night while watching Amy Goodman's interview with Lawrence Ferlighetti, yhat his moment of political awakening was after witnessing the carnage in Japen after the bomb. I believe Howard Zinn had a similar experience and I know that my own father's experience in Korea made him a pacifist.

     So yeah, maybe Pollitt needs a damn lesson about what REALLY matters while she wages attacks on PC terminology. Jesus Christ.

     Posted by Lil at 09/04/2007 @ 11:24am

227. i don't think any general is a good guy. THAT is an oxymoron.---Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 10:55am

     I'm sorry....Eisenhower?!?!? The man quoted so often for "beware the Military-Industrial Complex"? The man whose tax policies (90% top marginal guys like JohannesRolf want to return to)?

     As for "warp drive", it's fine for Trekkies and futurists to debate faster-than-light travel....not so much for a candidate for President. Again, Clark is a nice guy, but an amateur and unless (see above) he actually SAVED THE WORLD from fascism...not going to get elected President.

     Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 12:19pm

228. Posted by LIL 09/04/2007 @ 11:24am

     I must be doing SOMETHING right, when I can get attacked by the Looney Left for being a "Republican operative" and the OTHER Looney Left for being a "Democratic party apologist"

     Atleast the first don't go around accusing "The Nation" of "crushing activism" or whatever insane "purest of the Pure" self-aggrandizement that LIL and Cindy Sheehan and her sychophants are practice.

     Again, I first thought the blame lied mainly with the Sheehan'ites, but not Cindy herself. Her snotty, "You're either with me or against me" attitude to Ms Pollitt, who merely pointed out the political reality, showed that the egomania is from the top down.

     At this point (if it was even within the realm of the possible), LOVE to see Cindy Sheehan elected to Pelosi's seat....and watch as she alienated everybody in the House, except possibly a FEW members of the Progressive Caucus, pushing herself so far outside the mainstream of the Democrats, to make Ron Paul look like a "power broker" back in the GOP majority days.

     Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 12:25pm

229. Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 12:19pm

     i think everybody is a good guy at heart.

     it's just that when they serve as generals, their job is to kill

     clark has a website "Www.stopiranwar.com"--he's retired.

     ike said those things after he was retired from the army.

     nothing like seeing your fellow human's innards on the ground to change a fella's attitude.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 12:59pm

230. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 12:59pm

     Well FROST, I think we both assumed the fact that Clark is a RETIRED general. Aside from maybe Zachery Taylor, this country has never elected a NON-retired general (Washington, Grant, Eisenhower).

     Are you saying you have no problems with RETIRED generals being President? If so, we're in agreement.

     Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 2:17pm

231. Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 2:17pm

     especially if we can travel through time.

     1986 here i come.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 2:31pm

232. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 2:31pm

     Heheh...okay, Marty McFly, what do you go back and change in 1986?

     Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 3:35pm

233. Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 3:35pm

     reagan

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 4:55pm

234. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but whining about being taken to task for actually trying to do something to hold cowardly Democrats in Congress accountable for their failure to carry out their Constitutionally mandated duties seems a bit tactless. You underestimated the level of frustration and anger at Pelosi, Conyers and other Democrats who promised to be strong opponents of the Bush regime only to cave in at every turn.

     You can ruminate on your opinion all you want, but at the end of the day you're still making excuses for people who haven't earned it. We are at a standstill. Until or unless impeachment is brought back to the table, Bush and Cheney will continue to flout the law, gut the Constitution and move us ever closer to yet another war we can't possibly hope to win. If you plan to take Cindy Sheehan to task for trying to do something about all that, expect to read complaints. You're actually being rather hypocritical, too, taking Sheehan to task for "whining" and then turning around and doing it yourself. Small wonder you've gotten such negative responses. Do us a favor, Ms. Pollitt, and grow up. If you can't take it, don't dish it out in the first place.

     Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 09/04/2007 @ 7:13pm

235. Sorry, part of my post got screwed up so here it is again. It is directed at Ms. Pollitt.

     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but whining about being taken to task -- after having attacked Cindy Sheehan for actually trying to do something to hold cowardly Democrats in Congress accountable for their failure to carry out their Constitutionally mandated duties -- seems a bit tactless. You underestimated the level of frustration and anger at Pelosi, Conyers and other Democrats who promised to be strong opponents of the Bush regime only to cave in at every turn. Someone had to step up to the plate, and no one else wanting that arduous task Cindy Sheehan made the decision to run against Pelosi. Whatever her chances, she's at least trying to do the right thing. She has earned your support and understanding, not your scorn.

     You can ruminate on taking flak for your opinion all you want Ms. Pollitt, but at the end of the day you're still making excuses for people who haven't earned it. We are at a standstill. Until or unless impeachment is brought back to the table, Bush and Cheney will continue to flout the law, gut the Constitution and move us ever closer to yet another war we can't possibly hope to win. If you plan to take Cindy Sheehan to task for trying to do something about all that, expect to read complaints. You're actually being rather hypocritical, too, taking Sheehan to task for "whining" and then turning around and doing it yourself. Small wonder you've gotten such negative responses. Do us a favor, Ms. Pollitt, and grow up. If you can't take it, don't dish it out in the first place.

     Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 09/04/2007 @ 7:19pm

236. reagan

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/04/2007 @ 4:55pm

     What about him? By 1986 he had won re-election and was incapable of a 3rd term. Or do you mean something more sinister?

     Posted by Mask at 09/04/2007 @ 10:36pm

237. Posted by MASK 09/04/2007 @ 10:36pm

     nothing sinister from me.

     i picked 86 cause i was having a real good time. pure selfishness, nothing more.

     are you trying to get me arrested. i think they send people to guantanamo for insulting the legacy of ST. Ronald.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2007 @ 11:37pm

238. "Maybe Katha Pollitt et al. should go to the Middle East and view the carnage that this Administration has caused with the complicity of the Democratic Party, which she so stridently defends."

     Do you think this is a fair and accurate depiction of what Katha Pollitt said or stands for?

     Directly? No. Indirectly-at this point, yes. The reason why I'm forced to say yes is because Katha Pollitt is supporting a method of change against the slaughter that she ought to know full well isn't going to work against Nancy Pelosi and those other politicians that think like her. Pelosi must have baskets full of mail from her constituents against the war. I think that San Francisco successfully passed a nonbinding resolution supporting impeachment of Bush. Has it meant anything so far? Not really.

     Posted by OW20YE at 09/05/2007 @ 06:13am

239. Posted by OW20YE 09/05/2007 @ 06:13am

     Why would "a nonbinding resolution supporting impeachment of Bush, that San Francisco successfully passed" EVER "mean" anything...outside of SF???

     Posted by Mask at 09/05/2007 @ 07:03am

240. Why would "a nonbinding resolution supporting impeachment of Bush, that San Francisco successfully passed" EVER "mean" anything...outside of SF???

     My points are that if they are willing to pass this (despite no doubt the intervention of national Democrats who probably despised the idea, this demonstrates that):

     1) It is likely that Sheehan would gain support from the people that have been vastly overlooked by Pelosi and company (ie, most of us).

     2) Since the resolution really didn't change Pelosi's behavior-even from the people within SF, the next logical step would be removing her from office and replacing her with someone who is willing to listen to the people instead.

     Posted by OW20YE at 09/05/2007 @ 9:12pm