What to do about Cindy Sheehan

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Not that I'm against the war or anything, but some people have a problem with their children being sent off to some conflict without an official Declaration of War by Congress... After what happened in Vietnam, well you get the idea...

If that's the case, those "some people" should call their Congressional representatives and lobby them to change the law. The authority President Bush used to send forces to Iraq was granted under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (which, by the way, was written and passed in large part as a result of what happened in Vietnam.)

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to introduce American forces into areas where he feels they are necessary and in the best interest of the United States. However, he must receive from both houses of Congress either a declaration of war or "specific statutory authorization" within 60 days. If such authorization is not received, forces must be withdrawn.

This was the procedure that was followed prior to military action in Iraq in 2003. President Bush sought and received approval from Congress, passed 296-133 by the House and 77-23 by the Senate. Without such approval, the President would not have been able to do much of anything.

The powers of a President to initiate military action are checked by Congress, and thus, through representative democracy, by the people. Congress controls the creation and ratification of law. If someone is unhappy with the way the law is written, they should pick up the fone and call Capitol Hill, or vote for the other guy the next time around.

[masterblaster72 0]

My bad, and thanks for the correction -- he did visit a hospital before the Iraq war started. And thanks for reinforcing my point about his cutting veteran's benefits.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

I like the loaded question, especially the "look her name up on FOX NEWS," that was the best part.

What's your point?

[valcore 0]

Quote

How about this for support for our troops: ARM THEM TO THE TEETH. GET THEM BETTER EQUIPMENT AND ARMOR. The billions (your money and mine) spent on this war aren't arming our troops.

Hmmm I don't agree with this comment, we have gotten some cool new toys recently. Such as Air Conditioned body armor that will allow the top gunner on a humvee to be very well protected from IED's. We have had many pay raises, New planes such as the Osprey, F-35, F-22 and the even newer ECM F-18. We have new gear to protect us against gas attacks, new weopons for the Marine Corps should be seen with in the next two years. The list goes on, does this give you an Idea that president Bush is spending money on the troops.

As far as your post goes I am sorry if I gave the impression of a onesided argument. That is not what I intended, I would like to encourage others to comment freely. That is what being an American is about right. As far as the news site you can feel free to read CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post or your local paper if you want.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I'm from the government and I'm here to help’. ~Ronald Reagan

30,000,000 legal firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

many who complain too are NOT the ones that have their children fighting the war...

In light of the fact that this is taxpayer supported, and that many of those who complain are Americans, who happen to have a right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment, why should it matter whether or not those that complain of the war have children fighting there?

[valcore 0]

Quote

Quote

many who complain too are NOT the ones that have their children fighting the war...

why should it matter whether or not those that complain of the war have children fighting there?

Personal Opinion here, but I strongly believe that unless you have served your country and you have not really earned your right to protest. Now I know that the Frist Amendent protects our rights by giving freedom of speech, but I am sorry if you have not served what do you know about War and why we do it, what gives you the right to say "Our soldiers are dying there and for what" when you are not the one fighting, you truly can't understand someone until you spend some time in their shoes. Well like I said just an Opinion and we all know that these are like elbows and ass holes everyone has some.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I'm from the government and I'm here to help’. ~Ronald Reagan

30,000,000 legal firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

happen to have a right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment

The First Amendment doesn't grant anything... it prohibits the government from infringing on a right we already had... but that's a different discussion.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

on the SAME DAY his administration acted to cut benefits to veterans

You should work for the media... the article you linked does not say one word about cutting benifits. If fact it said there is an increase in funding, just not in the amount the VFW would like to see... I agree that it is not as large an increase as it should be, because vnetrans healthcare sucks and has for a long long time, but a $500MM increase is not a cut...

J

Apparently, you forgot the lessons of the 90's. Any increase that isn't as much as desired, is a cut if it's done by a Republican. If it's done by a Democrat, it's called slowing the rate of growth.

[wmw999 2,171]

George Bush has never been to war (yes, he was in the National Guard for awhile). Condoleeza Rice has never been to war. Dick Cheney has never been to war. Donald Rumsfeld has never been to war.

While they're not protesting, they're certainly making a lot of decisions having to do with war. I'd rather that at least some of the people making the decisions have served, than that the people protesting have served.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

George Bush has never been to war (yes, he was in the National Guard for awhile). Condoleeza Rice has never been to war. Dick Cheney has never been to war. Donald Rumsfeld has never been to war.

While they're not protesting, they're certainly making a lot of decisions having to do with war. I'd rather that at least some of the people making the decisions have served, than that the people protesting have served.

Wendy W.

Damn straight.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

The First Amendment doesn't grant anything... it prohibits the government from infringing on a right we already had... but that's a different discussion.

J

Actually, that is exactly why I used the word "guaranteed" instead of "granted." provided by the Constitution, but rather protected by it.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

George Bush has never been to war (yes, he was in the National Guard for awhile). Condoleeza Rice has never been to war. Dick Cheney has never been to war. Donald Rumsfeld has never been to war.

While they're not protesting, they're certainly making a lot of decisions having to do with war. I'd rather that at least some of the people making the decisions have served, than that the people protesting have served.

Wendy W.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting only Presidents who have military combat experience should exercise use of the US military?

[jdhill 0]

Quote

what gives you the right to say "Our soldiers are dying there and for what" when you are not the one fighting, you truly can't understand someone until you spend some time in their shoes.

I'll have to disagree here... one does not have to have served to understand the whys and wherefores of armed conflict... wars are fought by soldiers in the interest and name of the people, so the people should have a voice in if and why the war should be fought...

I would agree that critisism and protest of and about specific actions of soldiers should be reserved to those who have walked in those boots, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 2,471]

>Are you suggesting only Presidents who have military combat
>experience should exercise use of the US military?

I think that if you believe that only people who served in war can protest, then it's a bit hypocritical to happily support a war ordered by someone who never served. Surely if not serving in a war makes you unfit to object to one, it makes you unfit to start one.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

I think that if you believe that only people who served in war can protest, then it's a bit hypocritical to happily support a war ordered by someone who never served. Surely if not serving in a war makes you unfit to object to one, it makes you unfit to start one.

Good point. I completely agree.

[valcore 0]

Quote

Quote

what gives you the right to say "Our soldiers are dying there and for what" when you are not the one fighting, you truly can't understand someone until you spend some time in their shoes.

I'll have to disagree here... one does not have to have served to understand the whys and wherefores of armed conflict... wars are fought by soldiers in the interest and name of the people, so the people should have a voice in if and why the war should be fought...

I would agree that critisism and protest of and about specific actions of soldiers should be reserved to those who have walked in those boots, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

J

hmmmm good counter point

The most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I'm from the government and I'm here to help’. ~Ronald Reagan

30,000,000 legal firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I strongly believe that unless you have served your country and you have not really earned your right to protest.

They are rights, not privileges. They do not need to be earned. The are granted by the Creator, not the government. There are no strings attached.

Quote

I am sorry if you have not served what do you know about War and why we do it, what gives you the right to say "Our soldiers are dying there and for what" when you are not the one fighting, you truly can't understand someone until you spend some time in their shoes.

I don't know what being a soldier has to do with understanding the politics behind the war.

BTW I gave my country eight years.

[masterblaster72 0]

Those cool new toys are good publicity, or are our troops really carrying that stuff now? If you hear about it on the tele, it doesn't necessarily mean that our troops are donning it in combat. Only six months ago soldiers were searching among scrap metal piles to enhance their armour, remember Rummy getting asked some questions by a pissed-off soldier a little while back, as to why he had to do that? I'm hoping that we really did correct the problem that quickly, and if so, good for W. for finally wising up two years after starting this war.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Those cool new toys are good publicity, or are our troops really carrying that stuff now? If you hear about it on the tele, it doesn't necessarily mean that our troops are donning it in combat. Only six months ago soldiers were searching among scrap metal piles to enhance their armour, remember Rummy getting asked some questions by a pissed-off soldier a little while back, as to why he had to do that? I'm hoping that we really did correct the problem that quickly, and if so, good for W. for finally wising up two years after starting this war.

Isn't is Congress that designs and passes budgets, and appropriates funds for pretty much everything? I don't know if the President himself has the fiscal authority to buy a cheeseburger.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

George Bush has never been to war (yes, he was in the National Guard for awhile). Condoleeza Rice has never been to war. Dick Cheney has never been to war. Donald Rumsfeld has never been to war.

While they're not protesting, they're certainly making a lot of decisions having to do with war. I'd rather that at least some of the people making the decisions have served, than that the people protesting have served.

Wendy W.

Which is probably why he keeps deferring to the General and those on the front lines instead of politicians to make decisions like setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. BTW since McArthur, there hasn't been a national political figure who has had the experience to conduct a war, so whats your point?

[masterblaster72 0]

Right, and this president has a congress that does most of what he likes it to do. Oh wait, it must be those democrats in Congress then. If it weren't for them, our troops would be nuke-proof.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Right, and this president has a congress that does most of what he likes it to do. Oh wait, it must be those democrats in Congress then. If it weren't for them, our troops would be nuke-proof.

Whether or not the Congress does most of what he likes it to do is irrelevant. The fact remains, it is Congress that controls the purse strings. Thus, "and if so, good for W. for finally wising up two years after starting this war" isn't quite accurate, is it?

If you don't like the way your tax dollars are being spent, call Capitol Hill.

[masterblaster72 0]

Maybe not so accurate and I stand corrected. At the same time, I don't think it's realistic to suggest it's out of his reach, due to the structure of government spending, to make sure troops are equipped as they need to be in combat or driving to the airport in Baghdad.

I find it troubling that republicans, who pride themselves on being so strong on the military, have taken this long to respond to the needs of the troops when obviously something has been very wrong for some time. Bush proposes tens of billions more in funding for the war, numerous times since 2003, congress approves it.

Soldiers in 2005 are searching amid piles of scrap metal for armour.

Something's not right, and I would expect a commander-in-chief to be alarmed by it and get sh.t moving in the right direction much sooner. I think the way this war is being run is amateur and halfassed and we owe our troops better. It was this administration that scoffed at advice from top military commanders to send a much larger number of troops to the war. That's a choice Bush could have made, and is just now starting to wise up to.

The support the troops need is best initiated from the top, from the commander-in-chief.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Nightingale 0]

As Americans who elect our leaders, it's not only our right, but our responsibility to hold our government accountable for its actions.

As a soldier, it was her son's responsibility to follow orders and go and fight when and where he was told to. However, it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that its soldiers lives aren't wasted. Cindy Sheehan knows what her son agreed to, but as a US citizen and a mother, she wants reassurance that her son's life was not wasted.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

she wants reassurance that her son's life was not wasted.

She doesn't think Iraq or any of the war on terror are worth it, so there is nothing to reassure her of... She has even stated that if her son had died in Afganistan v. Iraq, she would still be doing what she is doing.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke