By Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 10, 2008; Page A10
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has agreed to testify next week before the House Judiciary Committee about his assertions that top Bush administration officials misled him about their role in the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
In his new book, "What Happened," McClellan writes that then-White House political adviser Karl Rove and then-vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby deceived him about their involvement in the leak -- prompting him to pass on inaccurate information to reporters.
The disclosure drew the attention of Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). He has expressed particular interest in McClellan's assertion that he had been directed by then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. to vouch for Libby's lack of involvement, as he had for Rove.
"I have extended an invitation to Mr. McClellan to testify before the Judiciary Committee after discussions between committee staff and his attorneys," Conyers said. "In his book, Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a coverup regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention." ad_icon
Michael and Jane Tigar, who are representing McClellan, said in a statement: "We confirm that Mr. McClellan will appear before the House Committee on the Judiciary and will answer questions as outlined in the Chairman's invitation. He will also make a statement about the policy proposals he presents in his book."
The Judiciary Committee staff expects the former press secretary to appear June 20.
By Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 10, 2008; Page A10
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has agreed to testify next week before the House Judiciary Committee about his assertions that top Bush administration officials misled him about their role in the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
In his new book, "What Happened," McClellan writes that then-White House political adviser Karl Rove and then-vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby deceived him about their involvement in the leak -- prompting him to pass on inaccurate information to reporters.
The disclosure drew the attention of Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). He has expressed particular interest in McClellan's assertion that he had been directed by then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. to vouch for Libby's lack of involvement, as he had for Rove.
"I have extended an invitation to Mr. McClellan to testify before the Judiciary Committee after discussions between committee staff and his attorneys," Conyers said. "In his book, Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a coverup regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention." ad_icon
Michael and Jane Tigar, who are representing McClellan, said in a statement: "We confirm that Mr. McClellan will appear before the House Committee on the Judiciary and will answer questions as outlined in the Chairman's invitation. He will also make a statement about the policy proposals he presents in his book."
The Judiciary Committee staff expects the former press secretary to appear June 20.
By Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 10, 2008; Page A10
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has agreed to testify next week before the House Judiciary Committee about his assertions that top Bush administration officials misled him about their role in the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
In his new book, "What Happened," McClellan writes that then-White House political adviser Karl Rove and then-vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby deceived him about their involvement in the leak -- prompting him to pass on inaccurate information to reporters.
The disclosure drew the attention of Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). He has expressed particular interest in McClellan's assertion that he had been directed by then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. to vouch for Libby's lack of involvement, as he had for Rove.
"I have extended an invitation to Mr. McClellan to testify before the Judiciary Committee after discussions between committee staff and his attorneys," Conyers said. "In his book, Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a coverup regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention." ad_icon
Michael and Jane Tigar, who are representing McClellan, said in a statement: "We confirm that Mr. McClellan will appear before the House Committee on the Judiciary and will answer questions as outlined in the Chairman's invitation. He will also make a statement about the policy proposals he presents in his book."
The Judiciary Committee staff expects the former press secretary to appear June 20.
Another post from 5 years ago, toward the beginning of the Iraq war, where Whomod had nice things to say about McCain, because McCain was critical of Bush's management of the Iraq war.
Originally Posted By: whomod, September 14, 2003
By the way Dave, here's a transcript from the 9th of Sept. (mistakenly posted as 10/09/03)
Just when, for example, would more international troops arrive in Iraq?
MARC GROSSMAN, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: Senator, it depends on how quickly we pass this UN Security Council resolution and our objective is to -.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: That's true.
One month, six months, two months, five years?
NORMAN HERMANT: There weren't a lot of answers.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: I would repeat -- do you have any idea as to when we could expect the first international troops to arrive in Iraq?
MARC GROSSMAN: No, sir -.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: You have no idea?
MARC GROSSMAN: Well, sir, I -.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Thank you.
NORMAN HERMANT: And more than four months after George Bush boasted of prevailing in Iraq, there was plenty of criticism for the American strategy -- or lack of one -- since the toppling of Saddam's regime.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, US DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY: You say we didn't plan for when the war was over.
The problem is that the war isn't over.
The problem is that the Ba'athist regime -.
SENATOR TED KENNEDY, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: You mean in spite of the President's statement out of that aircraft carrier, when he made his statement.
You're saying now the war is -?
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Go back and read the statement, Senator.
SENATOR TED KENNEDY: I listened to it.
I heard the statement.
I saw that banner that was there.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: He said it was the end of major combat operations, which indeed it was.
SENATOR TED KENNEDY: Now you distinguish between the end of major combat and the war isn't over -- that is very interesting for service men and women that are out there, very interesting.
NORMAN HERMANT: Many of those service men and women were reacting today to news that tours of duty for reservists have been extended.
Most will now be here for one year.
US SOLDIER: Well, morale was pretty high, but now it's at the bottom.
It's very disappointing.
Y'know, you can't always paint the non-rosy news as being "liberal" attacks, sir. I guess John McCain and Chuck Hagel are also part of this liberal conspiracy of yours.
Quote:
administration officials had criticized former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for estimating the Iraq war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. With the $87 billion request following $79 billion already approved by Congress, "we're already in the upper reaches of that estimate for the first two years of a long commitment," he said.
"And, Mr. Wolfowitz, you told Congress in March that 'We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.' Talk about rosy scenarios," he said.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. said Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong time."
"It was a go-it-alone policy. And we had a policy in order to win the war, but it's quite clear we didn't have a policy to protect our troops after the war is over," he said.
Not all criticism came from Democrats. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said Tuesday on the CBS News Early Show that the administration "did a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq."
At the hearing, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said "we underestimated the size of the challenge that we would face after the military operations were completed."
But contradicting himself, he now calls him "McSame" and implies that McCain is just like Bush.
Ignoring the evidence that WHOMOD HIMSELF posted, that McCain was critical of Bush for all 5 years, and constructively pressed Bush all along toward a winning strategy in Iraq.
So you're going to post stuff from before McCain decided to fall in lock step with Bush? To prove what exactly?
That McCain is either schizophrenic or senile (or just sold out his independence in order to court the far right) now?
While you're at it, why don't you post the old video that I put up with Cheney talking about why invading Iraq would be disaster. Since I agree with that old assessment, that must mean I must disagree with him now only because he's the Vice President.
So you're going to post stuff from before McCain decided to fall in lock step with Bush? To prove what exactly?
That McCain is either schizophrenic or senile (or just sold out his independence in order to court the far right) now?
Just another lying cocksucker's argument on your part.
PROVE IT !
You can't. Because it's not true.
Consistently for 5 years, McCain pushed for Rumsfeld's removal, and consistently for 5 years, McCain pressed for larger troop-strength in Iraq, enough to get the job done right. McCain also consistently criticized unanticipated cost, and wasteful spending in Iraq, among other things.
UNLIKE Obama, Hillary, or the other Democrat leadership, McCain never advocated withdrawal or abandonment of Iraq. Only switching to an effective winning strategy.
With McCain, it's largely been an issue of judgement on Iraq and consistently, his judgement has been wrong.
McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]
“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]
“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]
“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]
“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]
“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]
“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
McCain was proud of Bush's leadership on the war in Iraq:
MATTHEWS: Let me you about, are you proud of the work, and the leadership of the Commander-in-Chief in this war?
MCCAIN: Yes, I am. I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he's done a great job leading the country, don't you all? [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]
McCain on admiring Rumsfeld.
MCCAIN: "...and I'm a great admirer of Rumsfeld."
...MCCAIN: I think the president is blessed to have two extremely talented people (Powell and Rumsfeld), experienced people, working for him, and others, but particularly those two. [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]
McCain - Sunnis and Shiites can probably get along.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator McCain, with what you've already said about the powerful presence of the Shiah majority in Iraq, how would you propose we represent that majority in the new democracy?
MCCAIN: Well, I don't think there's any doubt that as the largest population segment, that they would play a major role.
I think one of the tricky areas, of course, is the relationship they have with the Kurds. There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiites. So I think they can probably get along. [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]
Despite claiming to have called for more troops from the outset, McCain didn't think we needed more international troops on the ground.
MCCAIN: I think that the only military presence required right now would be American and British. [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]
McCain talks about lessons he learned from Vietnam, lessons that apply pretty clearly to Iraq as well.
MCCAIN: ...I have been committed from my experience in Vietnam never to get into a conflict that the American people would not support over time.
I felt that the difference between the Vietnam conflict and this one we just went through is that in Vietnam, we didn't have clear cut objectives. We didn't have a strategy for victory. And obviously, we didn't have, over time, the support of the American people. I didn't feel that the Iraqi challenge in any way could be equated to that in Vietnam. [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]
So as you see,he has criticized a few times, and when he has I've agreed. But they've been the exception rather than the rule. Criticizing Rumsfeld is not some great act of defiance. Well, to Republicans maybe it was. It just shows that for a short while he exhibited some common sense. And the GOP, like with Hagel, wanted nothing to do with that kind of talk. In fact i'll bet you probably asserted that he was comforting America's enemies by speaking out.
That is your standard line up until the last American accepts something as the conventional wisdom.
Another post from 5 years ago, toward the beginning of the Iraq war, where Bush had nice things to say about McCain, because McCain was critical of Bush's management of the Iraq war.
Bush was happy McCain was criticizing the war?
Wonder Boy??
Look, a lot of those sunny scenarios could easily be explained away if McCain so wished by just saying he was as misled as most Americans now know they were.
Hillary did it. Edwards did it. Even though I think they should have fucking known better and just went along with the war out of political cowardice and calculation at the time.
But in fact he's taken the opposite approach these past couple of years. He's wholeheartedly embraced the war even as it's been shown to have been predicated on lie upon lie. That's not to be applauded, condoned or tolerated or just allowed to pass. While all the intelligence has said one thing, he's embraced the original premise even stronger. It's really a sort of political suicide designed to appeal to die hards but will IMO turn off most everyone else who accepts the fact that we were all misled by Bush and need to get out if only to save what's left of our economy and our military.
If you were not so blindly partisan, Whomod, you would see that I was constructively critical of the Iraq war from the beginning. Not "blindly supportive" of Bush. Less critical than you, but still critical and guardedly optimistic that these hurdles could be overcome. And it took 5 years, but they finally were.
I felt from the beginning that we didn't go in with enough troops, and that we should have conducted the war as the generals wanted it fought, not as the civilian leadership did.
But at the same time, I felt that liberal criticism has consistently hidden the victories we've made, building schools, hospitals, and in every way, a more open and modern state. UNREPORTED: a real estate boom in Iraq over the last year, brought on by the new security Iraqis feel in the wake of the Surge. UNREPORTED: Anuual economic growth of about 10% a year, bringing with it jobs and huge spikes in annual earnings.
It has been a very unusual war, and it has required repeated adaptations on the part of our military to deal with those changes.
We weren't fighting just Iraqi resistance, but a foreign Al Qaida leadership that was organizing Iraqi resistance, of Iraqis that wouldn't be able to resist our occupation otherwise. Then Al Qaida sucessfully blew up a sacred Shia mosque and killed hundreds, that finally sparked ethnic cleansing and a civil war, separate from the fight against Al Qaida. That's Iraqis killing iraqis, NOT Iraqis killed by U.S. forces.
You posted a bunch of soundbyted quotes obviously collected at some partisan spin site, which I'm confident don't reflect the full context of what McCain actually said.
AGAIN: McCain has pressed for more troops in Iraq from the beginning, and he began pressing for Rumsfeld's removal early on. McCain also criticized the Bush administration for under-estimating the cost of reconstruction, but he also acknowledged that there's no way we could have known how bad the infrastructure in Iraq had been allowed to deteriorate under Saddam Hussein. Much of the reconstruction was not war damage, but simply schools, hospitals and civilian infrastructure that had been neglected for decades under Saddam.
You label that at "blindly supporting Bush". I label his quoted remarks as being passively supportive, while pressing Bush on the most important and changeable aspects of the war strategy (i.e., CONSTRUCTIVELY criticizing Bush, and pushing for change from within the party)
Here's an interview of McCain I posted earlier, from PBS News Hour, on November 6, 2003:
Reporting that increased sense of security in Baghdad has resulted in a real estate boom in the Baghdad area "where condos in Baghdad are selling like beachfront condos in Florida 3 years ago". That Baghdad condos that sold for $20,000 are now selling for $70,000.
Former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday said President Bush has lost the public's trust by failing to open up about his administration's mistakes and backtracking on a promise to tell all about the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."
The former White House press secretary suggested that Bush could do much to redeem his credibility on the Plame matter and his reasons for going to war in Iraq if he would embrace "openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle." ....
McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee that he doesn't know if a crime was committed and does not believe that Bush knew about or directed the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: "I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there."....
McClellan accused Bush of a lack of candor in other areas, including what he called the "packaging" of intelligence to justify the Iraq war and the president's handling of allegations that many years ago he had used cocaine....
"I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, 'Were you involved in this in any way?' And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not."
In fact, both Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove had discussed Plame's identity with reporters. Libby resigned from office the day he was indicted on charges of covering up the leak. Rove remained, eventually leaving office in August 2007. Rove has never been charged in the case.
Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters as retribution for criticism from her husband.
Under questioning by Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., McClellan agreed with Plame's assessment.
"My belief is ... it was part of the effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson," McClellan said.....
The era of Authoritarian criminality is almost over. And their little henchmen will just have to cry into their FOX news repeating "there were WMD!! There were WMD!!"
... this article discusses the larger interests of the U.S. in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.
While I think this article exaggerates the drama of this being some "ultimate" stage of U.S. occupation in Iraq, it at least gives a nice overview of what's at stake, and the demands and political concerns of all the sides involved.
Reporting that increased sense of security in Baghdad has resulted in a real estate boom in the Baghdad area "where condos in Baghdad are selling like beachfront condos in Florida 3 years ago". That Baghdad condos that sold for $20,000 are now selling for $70,000.
That's wonderful news! Now the "Terrorists" or the Americans can blow up more expensive real estate! Great work, Dubya!
Plus, as an added bonus, the now 2,000,000 or so displaced Iraqi's can be jealous over the expensive real estate that only a few can afford to live in. And, I suspect those few will turn out to be the ones who support the US. Thereby creating YET ANOTHER REASON FOR THE IRAQI'S TO HATE US.
Yes, it's all going according to plan.
Zzap!
Rex 5/24/08 "You know how you say Zzap! at the end of every post? Thats hella cool. I'm gonna start doing it."
Wonder Boy the racist pedophile - 5/24/08 - "I wish someone would embed that cute little African AMERICAN mouthing your COCK."
Rex's sexual confusion - May 25, 2008 - "I am a woman. and no, I will not show you any pictures."
First Among Daves homo obsession with my hands - May 25, 2008 - "I'm guessing the rest of the fingernails on your soft and supple hands are long. Big palms, soft skin with no callouses. Perhaps you moisturise so the flesh on your hands stays a little wet."
Again, you HATED McClellan until he said something that that fit neatly into your vindictive liberal-partisan little world.
Plenty of others are describing McClellan as "selling out President Bush for his 30 pieces of silver".
While in his position at the White House, it can't be said that McClellan was anything more than a tool. But now that he's grown the backbone that all Americans should have, he's finally shedding that "tool" persona and doing the right thing.
Sorry it doesn't help your guys out.
Zzap!
Rex 5/24/08 "You know how you say Zzap! at the end of every post? Thats hella cool. I'm gonna start doing it."
Wonder Boy the racist pedophile - 5/24/08 - "I wish someone would embed that cute little African AMERICAN mouthing your COCK."
Rex's sexual confusion - May 25, 2008 - "I am a woman. and no, I will not show you any pictures."
First Among Daves homo obsession with my hands - May 25, 2008 - "I'm guessing the rest of the fingernails on your soft and supple hands are long. Big palms, soft skin with no callouses. Perhaps you moisturise so the flesh on your hands stays a little wet."
While in his position at the White House, it can't be said that McClellan was anything more than a tool. But now that he's grown the backbone that all Americans should have, he's finally shedding that "tool" persona and doing the right thing.
Sorry it doesn't help your guys out.
Zzap!
Liberals were and still are ready to lynch anyone involved with the Bush administration with claims of being evil war criminals.
But now that one of them is willing to sell out for the sake of parroting the party-lines that have already been repeated against George Bush ad nauseum, they're willing to forget McClellan's war criminal status for the sake of padding the egos of their media pets.
Democrats truly are the most compromising creatures in the universe.
Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party's most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military ("General Betray Us"). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush's Texas ranch.
That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan -- 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 -- anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent.
No group was more angrily opposed to the war in Iraq than the netroots activists clustered around the left-wing Web site DailyKos. It's an influential site, one of the biggest on the Web, and in the Bush years many of its devotees took an active role in raising money and campaigning for anti-war candidates.
In 2006, DailyKos held its first annual convention, called YearlyKos, in Las Vegas. Amid the slightly discordant surroundings of the Riviera Hotel casino, the webby activists spent hours discussing and planning strategies not only to defeat Republicans but also to pressure Democrats to oppose the war more forcefully. The gathering attracted lots of mainstream press attention; Internet activism was the hot new thing.
Fast forward to last weekend, when YearlyKos, renamed Netroots Nation, held its convention in Pittsburgh. The meeting didn't draw much coverage, but the views of those who attended are still, as they were in 2006, a pretty good snapshot of the left wing of the Democratic party.
The news that emerged is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have virtually fallen off the liberal radar screen. Kossacks (as fans of DailyKos like to call themselves) who were consumed by the Iraq war when George W. Bush was president are now, with Barack Obama in the White House, not so consumed, either with Iraq or with Obama's escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan. In fact, they barely seem to care.
As part of a straw poll done at the convention, the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg presented participants with a list of policy priorities like health care and the environment. He asked people to list the two priorities they believed "progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most." The winner, by far, was "passing comprehensive health care reform." In second place was enacting "green energy policies that address environmental concerns."
And what about "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan"? It was way down the list, in eighth place.
Perhaps more tellingly, Greenberg asked activists to name the issue that "you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently." The winner, again, was health care reform. Next came "working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections." Then came a bunch of other issues. At the very bottom -- last place, named by just one percent of participants -- came working to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's an extraordinary change in the mindset of the left. I attended the first YearlyKos convention, and have kept up with later ones, and it's safe to say that for many self-styled "progressives," the war in Iraq was the animating cause of their activism. They hated the war, and they hated George W. Bush for starting it. Or maybe they hated the war because George W. Bush started it. Either way, it was war, war, war.
Now, not so much.
Cindy Sheehan is learning that. She's still protesting the war, and on Monday she announced plans to demonstrate at Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama will be vacationing.
"We as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations [in Iraq and Afghanistan] even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office," Sheehan said in a statement. "There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies."
Give her credit for consistency, if nothing else. But her days are over. The people who most fervently supported her have moved on.
Not too long ago, some observers worried that Barack Obama would come under increasing pressure from the Left to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it seems those worries were unfounded. For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.
After my column, "For the left, war without Bush is not war at all," appeared Tuesday, I got a note from Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who was the subject of so much press coverage when she led a protest against the Iraq war outside then-President George W. Bush's ranch in Texas. This is what the note said:
I read your column about the "anti-war" movement and I can't believe I am saying this, but I mostly agree with you.
The "anti-war" "left" was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the "anti-Republican War" movement.
While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the DailyKos, I have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with the Republicans. That's why I left the party in May 2007 and that's why I ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.
I have my own radio show, "Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox," and I was out on a four-month book tour promoting the fact that it's not about Democrats or Republicans, but it's about the system.
Even if I am surrounded by a thousand, or no one, I am still working for peace.
Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
After receiving the email, I asked Sheehan to give me a call, so I could verify that the note in fact came from her. She did, and we discussed her plans to protest next week in Martha's Vineyard, where President Obama will be vacationing. "I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that even if they supported Obama, he doesn't represent much change," Sheehan said. "There are people still out here who oppose the war and Obama's policies, but it seems like the big organizations with the big lists aren't here."
I asked Sheehan about the fact that the press seems to have lost interest in her and her cause. "It's strange to me that you mention it," she said. "I haven't stopped working. I've been protesting every time I can, and it's not covered. But the one time I did get a lot of coverage was when I protested in front of George Bush's house in Dallas in June. I don't know what to make of it. Is the press having a honeymoon with Obama? I know the Left is."
After the protests in Massachusetts -- Sheehan told me she has no idea how many people might show up -- Sheehan will be in Washington October 5, for a protest at the White House to mark the eight anniversary of the start of the war in Afghanistan. Not only is the president escalating the war there, she said, but he's not withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as quickly as he originally promised. "That's why I was opposed to him," she said.
Anonymous 10/18/09 11:02 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: "It's not about oil or Iraq..." Anonymous 10/18/09 11:00 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: "It's not about oil or Iraq..."
Anonymous 10/18/09 11:10 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: "It's not about oil or Iraq..." Anonymous 10/18/09 11:08 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: "It's not about oil or Iraq..."
I wonder if the crazy-left will ever admit that we won in Iraq.
I saw General Petraeus interviewed on Fareed Zakaria (complete program here)
1) it was allegedly about "blood for oil", but both China and Britain have gotten far better deals on oil from Iraq since the war than the United States did.
2) Casualties in Iraq have become "virtually non-existent" over the last year, as the Al Qaida leadership has fled to regroup in Afghanistan.
3) the liberal allegation that the U.S. wanted to occupy Iraq forever has been disproven by the U.S.'s willingness to leave. Barring a massive insurgent effort, we'll drop to less than 50,000 troops in Iraq by the end of this year, and be completely gone from the country by the end of 2011.
4) contrary to liberal bemoaning of chaos in Iraq, yet another election is occcurring in Iraq, and it manifests an abundance of political factions and splinter parties having arisen to represent all groups. And increasing cooperation and coalitions of various political groups in Iraq, to build the consensus to get things done within their country. They're learning to work together.
The war is over, the U.S. and democracy won in Iraq. And Iraq is on a path toward great prosperity.
Bush's vision of a democracy in the heart of the Arab world --far from being a naive delusion-- has largely been achieved. With some rough edges admittedly, but growing increasingly independent, prosperous and stable, despite the best efforts to intimidate Iraqis into abandoning democracy, by terrorist fringe elements. (or as Whomod, Ray Adler and Michael Moore like to call these fanatics beheading innocent people, "freedom fighers")
Reports about the current Iraq election, and panel discussion of it, in today's Fox News Sunday program on Hulu here
[/youtube]
look out!!!