I respectfully disagree.

Impeach Cheney first. Then impeach Bush.

I’m all for it. Win or lose it will only help progressives. I’ll send $$$, too.
Just tell me where and when and how much.

:)

I admire her because she actually goes out and does what she says she’s going to. She actually ACTS. She may not win, she may not be liked, she may go her own way but she’s not violent or crazy or hurting anyone and she’s working with the system. She’s TRYING.

Now if only we could convince the still life that is the government to do the same.

I wish she would do something more useful. I can hear the wingers now calling her a media whore. And it maybe rightfully so.

I’ve grown tired of her ways of getting attention. She has absolutely no idea of what it takes to run a campaign or be an elected official.

I know I’ll be pilloried for this, but I’m not sure this is a good idea. I want Nancy to put impeachment back on the table as much as anyone, but I also know she has a lot of experience in the house. I sort of feel that Cindy is an emotional candidate and I’m not sure that’s what’s needed now. Okay, I’ll crawl under my desk and try to avoid the thrown tomatoes and eggs. ;)

Do it!

[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]

Come on Cindy, get serious. Your efforts in bush’s Crawford compound
were and are appreciated and respected, but seeking a political office
solely for purpose of getting Impeachment “back on the table” is not going
to happen.

Even if Cindy doesn’t win, she will help keep Nancy honest. More power to you, Cindy.

Why, why, that’s blackmail! How dare she? It’s not like Nancy hasn’t sacrified any of her offspring to Bush’s folly, errrr…

I’m with Loonie! Cheney first => beyond a’hole warmongering, lying, coward.

Yo Wretched — just wtf does your DUPLICATE post above have to do with this page?

Now, back to the subject at hand — Cindy Sheehan has as much chance of becoming a US Senator (and unseating Pelosi) as Bush does of resigning.

Actually, Pelosi did have a strong reaction to this news:

Rapid eye-blinking and deer-in-headlights stare.

john cobarruvias @ 5:

I wish she would do something more useful. I can hear the wingers now calling her a media whore. And it maybe rightfully so.

I’ve grown tired of her ways of getting attention. She has absolutely no idea of what it takes to run a campaign or be an elected official.

I agree. Her anti-war campaign was great, but now she’s just getting farcical. She is in no way suitable to be in Congress. She doesn’t have the temperament and she has done some truly stupid things which display a lack of political judgement.

If Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by Democratic leadership, maybe they should pay more attention to Republicans in Congress that brag about being obstructionist.

I’m all for it. Time to make these high powered and highly visable Dems start putting their money where their mouths are, so to speak. I’m sick and tired of empty promises of accountability. Perhaps if more well known activists started doing the same in districts of doubletalkers, things might start getting accomplished.

Nancy Pelosi is not the problem. Sheehan’s focus is off. This is a classic case of ready-fire-aim.

Why not take on a conservative Dem or a Republican? Why make liberal Dems the issue?

Aaargh,

pissed off patricia @ 6:

I know I’ll be pilloried for this, but I’m not sure this is a good idea. I want Nancy to put impeachment back on the table as much as anyone, but I also know she has a lot of experience in the house. I sort of feel that Cindy is an emotional candidate and I’m not sure that’s what’s needed now. Okay, I’ll crawl under my desk and try to avoid the thrown tomatoes and eggs. ;)

I have to agree. I respect Cindy Sheehan and appreciate her efforts, but Nancy has the experience.

A symbolic gesture at best. Sheehan would get thoroughly trounced…

Swashbuckler @ 20:

A symbolic gesture at best. Sheehan would get thoroughly trounced…

I agree.

pissed off patricia @ 6:

I know I’ll be pilloried for this, but I’m not sure this is a good idea. I want Nancy to put impeachment back on the table as much as anyone, but I also know she has a lot of experience in the house. I sort of feel that Cindy is an emotional candidate and I’m not sure that’s what’s needed now. Okay, I’ll crawl under my desk and try to avoid the thrown tomatoes and eggs. ;)

Not by me you won’t. It is a bad idea.

I don’t agree with Pelosi’s stands on a number of issues, but Sheehan is not the public face for Dems to put forward in the anti-war movement.

Pelosi seems to have gotten lost in the halls of Congress. Too bad politicians can lose their senses so easily. Although Cindy doesn’t have a chance in hell, I think it’s good she is applying pressure to Nancy.

I think she’s hopelessly naive. First, there’s no way to stop the war without at least 67 votes in the Senate. The Dems have 51, which includes Lieberman, who really isn’t one. Second, if she lives in Sacramento, how can she run for Nancy’s seat (SF)? Third, she wants to run to put impeachment back on the table? If she won, by the time she took her seat, Bush would have just days left before he left office. Yes, we need to end the war. But we must be realistic and also not sacrifice the political future which looks very good for our side. I appreciate all her public efforts to stop the war, but please leave politics to the adults!

Anything that makes the MSM talking heads mutter the word “impeachment” can’t be bad.

I like what Cindy did, and I would support her in other ways, but I’m voting for Pelosi, and Cindy is delusional if she thinks she can give Pelosi “a run for her money”. Pelosi is my congresswoman and she’ll be my congresswoman until Pelosi decides to retire or God forbids dies. I would have voted for Cindy against Feinstein, but Cindy decided not to run against Feinstein.

PNAAC Minister @ 25:

Anything that makes the MSM talking heads mutter the word “impeachment” can’t be bad.

Actually, it can be bad. If one looks too extreme in wanting impeachment it hurts the cause.

Impeach Gonzales first, then Cheney, then Bush. Not that Sheehan has a chance.

Hey, this is good for keeping the subject in the press, but we’re also going to have plenty of loony left talk by the MSM. Not that that’s much of a change…

Sheehan’s choice of target makes this completely unproductive. Her passion has overwhelmed her judgment. The momentum for what she wants is building and this would only get in the way and damage her standing. She should keep the focus on the issue and not attack Democrats.

Watch Nancy get real popular with the Repugs all of a sudden.

What’s her husband’s name, Sluggo?

Dr. Acula @ 13:

Yo Wretched — just wtf does your DUPLICATE post above have to do with this page?

Now, back to the subject at hand — Cindy Sheehan has as much chance of becoming a US Senator (and unseating Pelosi) as Bush does of resigning.

Agreed that she can’t win … but can she pull enough votes away to cause Pelosi to lose? This is typical leftie, idealistic, pie in the sky, third party bullshit. This is why there will not be a strong democratic majority in congress. Too many loonies throwing their votes away for principle, while the republicans snicker all the way to office.

I’d like to change everything about Washington D.C. But I’m realistic enough to know what I can and can’t do. Giving seats (and presidencies) to republicans to make a point is just fucking stupid.

Go ahead and tear me a new assholes all you Ralph Nader/Ron Paul/Insert name here _____ flavor of the month supporters.

Sheehan is bound to win against Pelosi. Oh yeah, Mike Gravel will take the presidency in 2008. Sylvia Browne has predicted this and it will come true.

AlphaLiberal @ 18:

Why not take on a conservative Dem or a Republican? Why make liberal Dems the issue?

Because Nancy is the Leader of the House?

While I do support the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, I don’t think Sheehan could ever beat out Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Pelosi has many years of Congressional experience (despite her recent cave-in to Bush about Iraq), and Sheehan only wants to get in the House to impeach Bush and Cheney. I don’t think that would work out well. But that’s just me.

The Champ is out.

Bush/Cheney need to be prosecuted but there is no law prohibiting Bush from pardoning himself or Cheney, which is exactly what would happen. Unfortunately, I think we need to wait until they are out of office, then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. We need canidates who will promise to investigate and prosecute in the future. Meanwhile, we need to remain vigilant in maintaining our rights and pressuring the administration to change course.

Swashbuckler @ 27:

PNAAC Minister @ 25:

Anything that makes the MSM talking heads mutter the word “impeachment” can’t be bad.

Actually, it can be bad. If one looks too extreme in wanting impeachment it hurts the cause.

What “cause”? We’re about as close to impeachment now as we were three years ago.

Extreme times call for extreme measures . . and screw the 24%ers.

I agree with p.o. Patricia and alpha;

This is a headline move, nothing more, which is kind of sad.

OUTSTANDING! I hope she does run, and I hope she wins. I’ll send her campaign money.

Don’t they make a nice couple?

Wretched Refuse @ 8:

How is this for a retirement epiphany?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....oston.html

Time for the truth about the Liberty

By Ward Boston Jr.
June 8, 2007

Forty years ago this week, I was asked to investigate the heaviest attack on an American ship since World War II. As senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry, it was my job to help uncover the truth regarding Israel’s June 8, 1967, bombing of the Navy intelligence ship Liberty.

On that sunny, clear day 40 years ago, Israel’s combined air and naval forces attacked the Liberty for two hours, inflicting 70 percent casualties. Thirty-four American sailors died, and 172 were injured. The Liberty remained afloat only by the crew’s heroic efforts.

Israel claimed it was an accident. Yet I know from personal conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd – president of the Court of Inquiry – that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

The ensuing cover-up has haunted us for 40 years. What does it imply for our national security, not to mention our ability to honestly broker peace in the Middle East, when we cannot question Israel’s actions – even when they kill Americans?

Today, survivors of Israel’s cruel attack will gather in Washington, D.C., to honor their dead shipmates as well as the mothers, sisters, widows and children they left behind. They will continue to ask for a fair and impartial congressional inquiry that, for the first time, would allow the survivors themselves to testify publicly.

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man, and when orders come in from the secretary of defense and president of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.

Adm. Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation, though we both estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors. The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.

I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered the attack knew the ship was American. I saw the bullet-riddled American flag that had been raised by the crew after their first flag had been shot down completely. I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did they attack with napalm, gunfire and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned at close range three life rafts that had been launched in an attempt to save the most seriously wounded.

I am outraged at the efforts of Israel’s apologists to claim this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

Adm. Kidd told me that after receiving the president’s cover-up orders, he was instructed to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Department of Defense and rewrite portions of the court’s findings. He said, “Ward, they’re not interested in the facts. It’s a political matter, and we cannot talk about it.” We were to “put a lid on it” and caution everyone involved never to speak of it again.

I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand-correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. In addition, the testimony of Lt. Lloyd Painter concerning the deliberate machine-gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and including in the original transcript, is now missing.

I join the survivors in their call for an honest inquiry. Why is there no room to question Israel – even when it kills Americans – in the halls of Congress?

Let the survivors testify. Let me testify. Let former intelligence officers testify that they received real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders instructing their pilots to sink “the American ship.”

Surely uncovering the truth about what happened to American servicemen in a bloody attack is more important than protecting Israel. And surely 40 years is long enough to wait.

Boston served as chief counsel to the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the attack on the U.S. Navy intelligence ship Liberty. He also served as a naval aviator in World War II on the carrier Yorktown and as an FBI agent prior to his assignment to the Navy’s Judge Advocates General Corps. He is a graduate of the the College of William and Mary School of Law and a resident of Coronado.

Ward, I have seen videos about this attack and I do think it should be investigated and we, as U.S. citizens should be outraged. I know that you as a military man had a duty to our country and did not reveal the information when you were investigating. Perhaps you should have been as brave as Joe Wilson when you knew the truth and exposed the acts at that time. We have an obligation to let our citizens know when our government does the wrong things that cost our soldiers and sailors their lives. We don’t have an obligation to Israel or any other nation over and above the citizens of our country. I do wish you luck in your efforts today. Will you please view the link that I am posting.

http://myfightfordemocracy.blo.....-2007.html

john cobarruvias Says:
I’ve grown tired of her ways of getting attention. She has absolutely no idea of what it takes to run a campaign or be an elected official.

Nope. Lying, duplicity, selling out. She knows nothing of that.

BALLS, FINALLY, YOU GO GIRL!!!
At least SOMEONE has some balls, everytime the dems come to me for money I tell them “Grow some damn balls and I will give you money” I had great hope for Pelosi but she is useless. Go CINDY!

Sheehan just made it more difficult for Pelosi to reverse course and not only put impeachment back on the table, but on the agenda as well. If Pelosi complies (not likely), she will be charged by the rabid right with making a personal, political calculation to protect her own job and succumbing to the threats of one individual. Impeachment is more than warranted against Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, yada, yada, yada, but Sheehan just made it less likely.

Sheehan is not a media whore, she’s a media creation. The media decided that she should be the face of the anti-war movement because she intially comes off as a bit of a flake with a goofy hat, not the intelligent, articulate woman that she actually is.

Flaky.

When Cindy Sheehan announced her “retirement” from the peace movement, she said she was burned out from overwork, overexposure, family conflict and abuse from her foes.

And now, a few weeks later, she wants to run for Congress? Or, rather is threatening to run for Congress, if Pelosi doesn’t impeach? What’s that all about? Where is this woman coming from?

Impeachment would be a great thing, but it will fail. There aren’t enough votes in the Senate. Nixon was forced out only when he was told by Republican Senators that he had lost their support. Bush and Cheney will win an impeachment fight - which will leave the Democrats in disarray heading into 2008. Unless there is a breakthrough in the judiciary committee hearings on domestic spying and Cheney’s violation of the classified document laws, and indictments are handed down, impeachment is just a bad idea.

If Sheehan thinks she has something to offer Californians in the areas of health care, immigration, the environment and war policy, well and fine. But she shows nothing but naivety and poor judgment with this threat to run.

What if an pro-life fundamentalist in Mississippi threatened to run against a Republican congressman unless that person introduced a bill outlawing abortion? C&Lers would laugh.

While Nancy Pelosi is a hack politician, I doubt that Cindy can match the Dem machine, of which Pelosi is a big gear.

Hearing Pelosi tell Charlie Rose recently that “the President is a lovely man, from a good family, a patriotic family” made me want to hurl. She is a cheap political whore, and should be regarded as such. And removed as Speaker ASAP.

Seems to me that Pelosi is scared to do what the vast majority of Americans voted her in to do. We want impeachment for this corrupt Administration now.

Swashbuckler Says:
I don’t agree with Pelosi’s stands on a number of issues, but Sheehan is not the public face for Dems to put forward in the anti-war movement.

The Dem’s HAVE NO “anti-war” movement, just a “anti-war TALK” movement. That’s why Sheehan said she’d run as an independent.

Amazing… some people still think there’s hope.

Dr. Matt @ 21: