On what planet do you live, where financial underwriting doesn’t mean payment? If I underwrite something or someone, I have to pay, don’t I?
It specifically says that there were media events sponsored by the groups, but says nothing about payments made to Mrs. Sheehan. The financial underwriting is linked to “being championed” by the word “and”, therefore the championing is being financially underwritten, which is evidenced by the next sentences in the article.
It was me that speculated that she may be self-financed. However, your cite above does not show that she is underwritten by MoveOn etc. It very specifically states that “a conference call” was underwritten. Saying that she was underwritten by them is a bit like saying the Detroit Tigers are underwritten by Louisville slugger because they get the bats for free.
It’s the same situation with the PR rep. She is being supplied by a liberal group to help out, but it doesn’t appear anyone is actually paying Mrs Sheehan for her time.
Of course this is just a guess. I don’t agree that what’s going on now is not a civil war. I do agree that it would almost certainly get worse if we pulled out.
The problem is our thinking we can and must or even can “fix” it. We may spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives only to realize that at some point we have to let nations determine their own fate.
Can you point to an historic example where our interference in another countries politics had any long term positive results. Hasn’t history taught us that those we install as our friends eventually become our enemies?
Why should we expect that the countries of the middle east or the people of Iraq will ever accept a government propped up by the US.
From a purely selfish standpoint if we pull out completely that means we are no longer losing American lives in nation building. {Something Bush said we shouldn’t do during his campaign} If there are huge civil wars that is their choice. If countries that are hostile to us want to expend their manpower and armies killing each other that doesn’t really hurt us in any way with the possible exception of economics.
I think thats the concept being sold but we don’t know if thats true. There was violence in Vietnam after we left. There was violence in India after Britian left. Eventually things were settled and at least the people knew they were deciding their own fate rather than existing under an occupation forces.
Then please describe for me your concept of a realistic win and how the cost of said win is worth it all. This is not sarcasm. I hear this being said a lot and looking at history I can’t see anything realistic that looks like a win.
Yes, and PR reps cost money, don’t they? Money in this case provided by the founder of an ice cream company.
Sheesh, if you have a problem with this, take it up with USA Today. Or the Washington Post, which has essentially the same story.
The woman is receiving outside money. Big effing deal. Why does this simple fact need to be attacked here?
I don’t think it’s anywhere near “lockstep.” Not all liberals adore her or her efforts. With or without slobber.
Or else I didn’t get the memo.
So let me get this straight, in your world if you have an assistant, but your company pays for it, you somehow are receiving money for that?
The only reason I’m saying this, is because you stare that something is “fact” which simply isn’t. How is she receiving money?
Personally I don’t give too hoots either, I suppose that’s the irony.
I didn’t either. Did we miss the meeting again?
Yes our presence. As long as we mantain a military presence there the violence will continue. What actions do you think might change things while a military force remained.
No, I think he would be saying, Bush and the republicans were wrong to get in but now we have to fix it. What’s being said now by many. I don’t think we can fix it and eventually we will have to see that. Getting the UN more involved {if he could} might help but that would mean huge financial concessions to European countries and that would be just as politically dangerous so I’m not sure he would succeed.
Not at all. I’ve advocated letting them decide all along. I just didn’t think this admin would allow it. Do you think there’s any way we can have a government there that is friendly toward the west?
I saw video and read transcripts of Kerry’s anti war protest. I admired his passion and words. I think years of being embedded in the Senate has turned him into a political animal who doesn’t have the same courage of his convictions he did back then. He did give power to this president to declare war without congressional approval. He wouldn’t committ to anything like a proposed solution during the campaign. He never seemed to find the courage to really speak from the gut. He hedged and dodged the way professional politicians do.
That doesn’t make him a bad guy. I voted for him. I’m just fed up with professional
politicians who make being disingenuous their primary strategy.
We may. It’s a judgement call when we think we’re at that point. I don’t think we’re there yet.
Japan, Germany and Korea. That last one wasn’t finished, but imagine if the whole of Korea was “North Korea”.
Because they’re smart enough to know that a gov’t “propped up by the US” is better than what they’d get otherwise. There WILL come a point, though, when the propping up ends. Then they’re truely on their own.
Lots of truth there. Of course, the economic consequences are hardly trivial. And if I thought we could contain the violence to the Iraq alone, I’d say let’s bug out now. Unfortunately, there is a high probability that the violence would expand. Once Turkey gets involved, then we’re talking NATO, and that drags us right back in.
A democratic Iraq, even if just quasi-democratic that is able to police itself and that stays united as one country. Whether or not that’s “worth it” is a matter of opinion. But again, I’m not focused on exactly how successful Iraq is as a democracy. They don’t have to be all that great to be orders of magnitude better than what the situation would be if we left now.
In my mind, this isn’t about building a model society in Iraq. It’s about preventing small brush fire from turning into a raging wildfire.
I have provided ample proof, I think, that Cindy Sheehan is getting financial support from others for her protest.
If anyone has other citations to the contrary, I’d like to see them.
So what? Even if you focus on the “extreme” view she’s pushing that we should cut and run, the polls still say that about 30% of the country agrees with her. Why shouldn’t some of that 30% support her. That’s a LOT of people. That doesn’t make her any less sincere or any less dedicated.
But, it does influece whether or not Bush decides to meet with her. If she’s being supported by organizations that are his political enemies, which I think is the case, why would she expect him to meet with her? But that’s an entirely different issue as to the legitimacy of her protest.
:rolleyes: Uhm, no, it’s not. As the chief executive of this nation, the POTUS is answerable to Congress, the elected representatives of the People in this Republic. Mrs. Sheehan has no more right than you or I to expect a direct answer from the President on matters of policy.
Pres. Bush is, IMO, taking a prudent course in NOT talking to Mrs. Sheehan, by NOT opening the door to every single aggrieved citizen who wants to short-circuit government and yammer in the President’s ear.
I have yet to see any evidence from you that Mrs. Sheehan is being paid or recieving money for stating her views, or for being in Texas, or for anything else. All I see is that others have paid for some of the events which have helped to spread her views. By your argument, USA Today is also “paying” her, because they paid the reporters who covered her story.
There’s a difference between how this woman’s efforts are being funded, and getting paid to do something. Yes, some liberal groups are underwritting her efforts, but that is categorically not the same as paying her for them. If I volunteer my time for Nose Hair Awareness Week, which involves me getting on a chartered bus to go somewhere and hand out pamphlets, someone has to pay for the bus and the pamphlets. They’re still not paying me, though, merely facilitating my unpaid efforts.
Double uhm no, the president is not any more answerable to congress than he is to the people. If you diagree, give me a cite.
I don’t think you can count Japan and Germany since they declared war on us and other nations as well. Korea isn’t exactly a shining example. We can imagine it either way.
They are huh? I’d have to see some evidence of that. It doesn’t seem to me that the majority wants a US sanctioned government. I think even many who wanted Saddam gone wanted to handle the rest themselves and now deeply resent our presence there.
I’m not sure how high the probability is. Is NATO involved only if Turkey is invaded? If the violence escalated it might force countries in the Middle East to grant concessions to end it. If we eventually got dragged back in would that be worse than now, or would other countries we already consider a hostile threat have depleated their military? If I could get the people I consider my enemies to use their resources fighting each other, That’s better for me right?
Well that’s what we’re hoping for. Evidently you think this is still realistic. I agree that it doesn’t have to be ideal. Just functioning on it’s own without our military support. I just really doubt if that will happen, or that our military presence will help it to happen.
Maybe I’m way off, but to me it seems natural for any nation to want to determine it’s own fate. If France had stayed after the Revolution to help us establish a government it approved of we would have wound up fighting the French. If we had stayed in France, or Germany or Japan after WWII to “support” their government through military occupation then we would have been fighting a similar guerilla war as we are facing now.
I see and that sounds good. That’s assuming that a raging wildfire is much worse than a brush fire that burns for 10 years. Or that we have the resources and the will to contain the brushfire when we are resented for doing so.
Have you even read Article 1 of the Constitution? How about Article 2, section 3? The powers and authority of Congress is more than sufficient to make the Pres. answerable to Congress for decisions and actions. Note that I don’t say “accountable,” except in cases of criminal acts leading to Impeachment by the Senate.
Can they demand the Pres. “answer” for a decision or course of action? Ultimately, no, they cannot, short of the criminal exception noted above. But politically, Congress has more than sufficient clout to attempt to arm-twist the Pres. into answering the hard questions.
Appropriations and Oversight Committees can call on the various departments and bureaus of the Executive branch to directly answer for their department’s or bureau’s expenditures and activities, directly reflecting on the Pres.
You are absolutely correct in this regard: If both houses of Congress passed resolutions essentially saying, “Mr. Prez, we would really like you to get your butt in here and explain to us exactly WTF is going on in Iraq!”, it would hold no more weight legally than Mrs. Sheehan’s demand for a personal Presidential explanation.
Politically, it’s a whole 'nuther matter.
Hmmm… disagree with someone’s politics → call them insane.
Well I admit, you made me read it. Section 2 of Article II has very little about the President answering to congress other than reporting on the State of the Union. Article I discusses impeachment, but little else on making the POTUS answerable to congress
I think we are in agreement here.