Cindy Sheehan Kinda Kicking Franken's Ass

Franken thinks because he's who he is Sheehan might back down a tad. Because he's running for Senate, Franken supports our staying "for the sake of the Iraqi's". Cindy says no one else should die for the "war machine"

She's amazing

I thought they were both doing fine. You must be listening to a different program.

apparantly we have a disagreement, that's all!

Everytime Franken voiced his support, she came back with better arguments than the same old tired one Franken has, which is very close to the GOP stand. Let's just stay and hope it all works out!

I do think she won that argument -- I know people who feel both ways that were against getting in there, it's a debate that needs to be had. They both sounded interested and intellegent, so much better than the screaming "debate" on the cable stations.

then you aren't against this war. As long as it's a "debate" - we'll never leave. Being anti-war means leaving now.

"being anti-war means leaving now." I'm not convinced. For sure being anti-war means we never should have gone in, but I think there is validity in the view that we will do more harm by leaving than staying. I'm not saying that is my view. I've never been there, and reliable news reporting is not available, so I simply don't know.

I do think this, however. I hear a lot about how much this war is Vietnam redux. Well, when we left Saigon we left them with a nightmare. Would that happen again?

Being anti-war means you want the war to stop, not that you wish the war hadnt gone so badly but would still like a little more war before it wraps up.

The line that we do more damage leaving than staying is absurd.

I mean, how do you KNOW? How can you predict?

And what if one small war prevents a bigger war? Then what do you do if you are "anti-war"?

Its quite simple.

but thank you for making me think. I guess I am not anti-war. All this time I thought I was. Your wisdom has led me to the truth.

I am pro-war.

http://www.asia-hotel.net/hotels/vietnam/south-east/ho-chi-minh-city-(saigon).htm

Sooner vs later

Because you don't lock-step agree with the definition of 'anti-war', at least how Cindy defines it.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

The language of absolutes runs amok on both sides of the spectrum.

Absolutes are so much easier than actual thought.

Just more disappointing to see it on the left.

Anyone who disagrees with your definition of anti war is a knee jerk leftist?

I guess I better agree with you quick so I dont become one of those leftist nuts eh?

Guess I better agree with you quick before I become a Republican, eh?

I said that anyone who supports a continued occupation is pro-war, because they support war.

How on god's green earth did you turn that into "anyone who disagrees with you is pro-war"

I also never mentioned the word republican making the rest of your post even more nonsensical.

If you believe that war is justified, thats your opinion, but why would you insist on calling yourself anti-war? Its got nothing to do with being a republican or conservative or anything. Al and apparently your position is based on humanitarian concerns I understand that, but thinking a war is justified for humanitarian purposes is simply not anti-war.

I have zero interest in this debate. I'm tired of the bullshit "more anti-war than thou" rhetoric, and that's all I'm going to get here.

You won, m'kay?

Calling yourself anti-war when you actually support continueing the war is simply hypocritical.

You're as judgemental and reactionary as any given war advocate if you believe I'm for prolonging the slaughter since I don't agree with your definition.

There is no "Democrat"-sanctioned ideal position, we're all entitled to our own thought processes. We've all seen what single-minded thinking has already done to Iraq. If you ask a dozen people on the street what continuing the war means, they'll all have a different answer.

I'm so sick and tired of this absolutionist GOP-like language. It's bullshit.

I suggested you might share Al's opinion in a post I just made, regardless, please cease putting words in my mouth.

I have not judged anyone, I have simply explained that the term anti-war means against war, and thus people who support continueing the Iraq war are not anti-war. I have made no judgements whatsoever so your attack on me is hardly justified.

I am reacting to you, you are reacting to me, I assume you are using the term 'reactionary' to try to cast me as some sort of wingnut. Petty propaganda.

I never said you were prolonging the slaughter if you didnt agree with me (where on earth are you coming up with this shit?), I said that anti-war means against war and anyone who supports more war is not anti-war.

I never said anything about any democrat sanctioned ideal position, I dont know what on earth you ar talking about. And yes people have different opinions, thats great, but you cant call positions things they arent, thats all. I am asking only for intellectual honesty.

What absolutism are you talking about? I am not saying you have to be anti-war or I will kill you or alienate you, simply that supporting war is not anti-war. The rest of this stuff you are inventing in your head.

GOP like? Hahahah. So you falsely accuse me of smearing you as a republican and then you smear me as GOP-like. Irony is delicious.

All I am saying is that anti-war means against war. Please, oh pretty, pretty please give me an alternate definition and support it rather than going off on rants about things I never wrote.

We supported a puppet government for all those years. When we left, the puppet government left, too. This could have happened 10 years earlier, or gone on for another 10 years with the same outcome.

into communism. Vietnam has done quite well since we left.

As someone pointed out a few weeks back, Iraqis didn't start killing Iraqis until after negroponte left Iraq.

but pretty darn close.

Realistically --

The only thing that would prevent a full-scale bloodbath is committing 500,000 troops on the ground and locking the country down. They would be there for 5-10 years and it would likely cost the US into the trillions.

Since the admin is not only unwilling but unprepared to make that kind of commitment, we need to get the hell out and let the chips fall where they may. In the long run, it's for the best (Iraq will likely be taken over by Iran anyway). Then try to figure out how to clean up the sorry mess we've left the ME in, through diplomacy and (gasp) cooperation.

Of course, the admin is also unwilling to make the kind of commitment that will get us out--so our occupation will follow in the mold of Vietnam 100% and kill thousands more.

Inevitable.

when we LEAVE... think about that 1

peace

Being anti-war means being anti-the war that happens when we leave, too.

The hard part is determining which war results in the most casualties...our war or the civil war that happens when we leave.

But as long as people use this "either you're for the war or you're against it" rhetoric, it's a waste of time.

It's about as logical an argument as Bush's with us or with the terrorists line.

That's the best I've heard yet: "Being anti-war means being anti-the war that happens when we leave, too."

Being anti-war doesn't mean washing our hands of the mess we've made. Talk about imperial hubris.

leaving. It isn't so.

I protested the invasion a great deal, starting in Fall of 2002.

Just because we anti-war types lost that battle doesn't give us the right to just up and yank our forces in the middle of it. We're committed now, like it or not.

Talk about irresponsible.

Anyone with any sense knows that we cant undo what we did, nobody can undo what we did. You cant go back and undo history.

If you are committed to occupying Iraq, you are for war. Being for war is not a type of anti-war.

I'm not committed to occupying Iraq. I am for keeping our promises to rebuild, though, which, granted, aren't going to be honored by this administration.

Washed our hands, left -

Viet Nam is doing just fine, and to think they could have done this sooner and millions more wouldn't have died for lies. http://www.travelsvietnam.com/Home.asp

Our war ended when we left, but the South's war went on until they surrenderd to the NVA. The NVA was an occupying army, and it was in their best interests to get South Vietnam up and on their feet. And that took decades.

There is no other occupying army to prop up Iraq economically and militarily during the reconstruction, we're it.

And Iraq isn't alone here, what happens there will affect the region, just as China-backed Cambodia spawned the Khmer Rouge in reaction to a Soviet-backed reconstituted Vietnam. Vietnam ended up invading Cambodia to secure its border, which resulted in China invading northern Vietnam. So no, Vietnam didn't just end quietly and happily, millions more kept on dying after we abandoned the mess we'd made.

Iraq may very well end up much like Afghanistan after the Soviets washed their hands and left. You probably won't be finding Afghanistan tourism websites, ever again.

Afghanistan has opium.... One has what world needs, one has what the world doesn't need. The world will not come to the aid of Afghanistan. That's too bad, it'a a beautiful country and god knows it could use a break from decades of war. I don't know if our presence there is good or not, I know for sure it is not in Iraq. The Taliban were evil and doing nothing for the people of Iraq. At least Saddam had water & electricity.

Oil will prevail and the ME and others will not let Iraq fail. The Iraqi's want the riches of thier land to work for them. Oil is what will rebuild that country.

That Iraq's oil would pay for the occupation. That proved false, since their refining capability is completely and totally shot and the very Iraqis that should have been fixing it are out of work.

I just read that the Kurds are taking their crude to Turkey, refining it, and bringing it back. The only people that will benefit from a situation like that are the Turks.

I wish I believed it was that easy, but Wolfowitz and Bremer believed the same thing, and that didn't help them either.

be a huge motivation for them to fix their country. They can say, who and who doesn't make money off of their country, vs the US Government

When you don't have potable water or electricity, the last thing on your mind is oil. They are now killing each other just for being different. The window for a peaceful reconstruction and transfer of power has closed, thanks to Bush's incompetence, and now it's a shooting gallery. If we didn't want to be cops, it's a little late to wash our hands of this.

This isn't like when we were teenagers, and trashing your friend's house when his parents were out of town and leaving him with the mess was no big deal...we've done burned the house down, sown the rubble with depleted uranium, and so pissed off the neighbors that they want your friend's parents out of town. I'm sorry, but we have to take some responsibility for this.

You and I agree, we have to make this stop. How we get there are two different things. Believe me, there is a point when even I will say, get the f8ck out, but we have to do better than this.

Electricity Plants - Imagine how many countries would jump on that one!!

Well, once the US has decided to allow other countries besides the Coalition of the Willing & Bribed to participate in the economic development of Iraq, that's certainly a viable program. And that won't happen until the assclowns in charge are sent packing.

I hate to daydream, but I can't help but wonder what would have happened had Kerry won. Your proposal could very well be official foreign policy. I like how you think.

None of this Iraq mess would be happening. :cry: :cry: :cry:

Haven't had a nightmare yet that I haven't woken up from.

But being for war because you argue it will prevent another war does not qualify as anti-war, it qualifies as anti-iraqi civil war. Anti-war implies you are against both wars.

Determining which war results in the most casualties would be impossible without a time machine of some sort.

Nobody is using the "either youre for the war or against it rhetoric" (huh?)

They are saying that anti-war means against war. If you argue that we should continue fighting in Iraq, you simply arent against war.

January of 03 (in sub-freezing temperatures), and in damn near every Iraq-war protest on the Mall since does qualify me as anti-war.

You need to seriously check yourself before you step to other DU'ers on anti-war credentials.

The question is whether or not we are helping to stabilize the situation or causing more unrest by our presence.

If Kerry had won, you can bet this would have turned into a peacekeeping mission.

As it stands, the Iraqis have legitimate questions about our intentions, and our refusal to internationalize the reconstruction effort (or make any progress on it) doesn't help any.

If we had simply gotten rid of Saddam and did what we said we were going to do, we wouldn't be in this mess.

A Clinton-style nation-building might have worked. A Bush style annihilation of Fallujah with no press privileges, massive giveaways to the military industrial complex in the guise of "rebuilding" while there's no water on doesn't do anyone any good.

But the fact that Bush is running the show incredibly poorly does not absolve us all of guilt here.

Ultimately, people are going to remember that the United States invaded, fucked it all up, and abandoned it, if you get your way.

That is not acceptable.

January of 03 (in sub-freezing temperatures), and in damn near every Iraq-war protest on the Mall since does qualify me as anti-war.

It suggets you are anti-war. But whether or not you are anti war comes down to whether or not you support the war, not where you have been.

You need to seriously check yourself before you step to other DU'ers on anti-war credentials.

Why, are you going to beat me up? I don't know what 'anti-war credentials' are, and I am not interested in some activist pissing contest nor have any of my posts in any way related to anyones anti-war activism.

The question is whether or not we are helping to stabilize the situation or causing more unrest by our presence.

Im sorry, you are quite mistaken. I was not discussing whether or not we are helping to stabalize the situation. I was discussing whether or not you can be called anti-war if you support continueing the war. Why you support continueing the war is certainly an interesting discussion, but does not relate to the issue of using the term anti-war in a manner that matches its definition.

If Kerry had won, you can bet this would have turned into a peacekeeping mission.

Well, I doubt that, but pure speculation aside.

As it stands, the Iraqis have legitimate questions about our intentions, and our refusal to internationalize the reconstruction effort (or make any progress on it) doesn't help any.

They have more than questions.

If we had simply gotten rid of Saddam and did what we said we were going to do, we wouldn't be in this mess.

No, we would be in the much of the same mess because you cant force a nation to coform to your wishes at gunpoint and expect anything other than a mess.

Ultimately, people are going to remember that the United States invaded, fucked it all up, and abandoned it, if you get your way.

That is not acceptable.

Nobody suggested we abandon Iraq. Some of us would like to help Iraq as much as we can rather than waging war on it in vain attempt that war will undo the damage caused by war.

I disagree that it is as simple as that. When you say you want to help Iraq by not waging war on it, you are ignoring the fact that Bush's actions have made that completely impossible.

We were supposed to get rid of Saddam, find weapons of mass destruction, and help the people of Iraq. We weren't supposed to be waging war on the country.

I don't support the war as it currently is, and I didn't support the invasion.

If I could get a real President to take over, order all the troops to stand down, apologize to the Iraqi people for killing, beating, torturing, and humiliating them, and ask what we can do to get their water, electricity, and government functions up and running, I would do so in a second.

Maybe it's stupid to think that there is a chance that can still be done. Clearly no one in power at the moment is going to do that.

The idea of leaving Iraq as it is right now, knowing that it will become too dangerous to be able to help (indeed, it already is), is unbearable.

But I don't disagree with you enough to continue arguing about it. I'm willing to bet we agree more on what should be done than we do on what can be done.

OMG - Viet Nam would have flourished like it has only it would have happened earlier. Millions more would not have died for a lie. http://www.clicktovietnam.com/Home.asp


Staying is only hurting Iraq. No one wins except the money making war machine. I don't support that one bit.

Civil War in Iraq....News Flash - it's already happening. Our fault, staying isn't helping.

Like I've said, it would be different if Kerry had won.

As it is, arguing for withdrawal seems like a waste of time. We're building permanent bases there. The only way to get out of Iraq is to impeach President Bush AND Dick Cheney after having won back the House and Senate.

And then we'd have a President (Pelosi) and a foreign policy that might be able to do some good in Iraq.

Personally, I would like that.

I tend to think that the only thing worse than our occupation would be to leave Iraq in the rubble we reduced it to.

I know a lot of people who think the opposite, that the only thing worse than leaving is continuing to be there.

I disagree, but not strongly enough to matter. If we had a President that cared about America's best interests, we wouldn't be having this argument.

We wouldn't have invaded Iraq, or we would have invaded and helped the Iraqi people, not terrified them into open revolt.

Bush is 100% responsible for this. We shouldn't be arguing with each other over either of the two wholly unsatisfactory ways to deal with his mess.

a difference of opinion amongst Democrats. Go figure.

A lot of people on DU seem to assume she is one, though.

seriously.

off their ass and come to their senses. Staying in Iraq is helping no one, except the money making war machine....

A difference of opinion with nobody "kicking ass" -- they are having lunch together, they mentioned at closing, I didn't get the same impression as you AT ALL.

She had better arguments for leaving, vs Franken's same old tired "let's just stay and hope it all works" approach.

Yes it was very respectful - she just had better arguments vs the famous comedian, writer, actor,...etc.

each other a lot.

And she went on and on about his USO service.

you're not reading my other posts.

they love each other -

Her arguments were better stated than Franken's same old theme of "staying the course" -

If he was against this war, he should be for getting out NOW. Staying the course isn't working.

This is the statement most people seem to be reacting to, not that you think Cindy won the discussion.

If Al and Cindy like each other this statement doesnt make a hell of alot of sense.

isn't easy. There's a built in intimidation factor and they know it.

She was relaxed and came out on top, where as usually the famous person does.

If this were a debate, Cindy Sheehan would have won

You made a claim about Al's attitude.

And Cindy Sheehan is famous too, and besides that she has already shown that like many people, she isnt intimidated by famous people.

She was relaxed partly because of her personality, but largely because she knos that Al will treat her with erspect. It was to some extent a debate, and yes, Cindy did win, but Al did not give any indication he thought his fame would force her to back down.

He's been famous a lot longer than she has.

The Bush people just keep bungling it, though. It was wrong to go in, but having gotten Saddam out, it could have been finished so as to get benefits for the Iraqi people, but that wasn't really the goal, now was it?

Im not sure why you think he was trying to intimdidate her.

If Al cant be right on this issue at the moment, at least he isnt afraid to give someone a chance to disagree with him in a respectful manner.

Gawd, she was better with out being rude or intimidating.

Words have meanings you know.

they disagree on when to leave Iraq.

at the end of the interview, Franken said "We're having lunch, right..?" sounds like they are on good terms

Al has been just as agreeable as possible it seems like to me.....

It's Bush, Cheney's and Rummy's fuck up now. They looted the treasury, time for them to get the fuck out, or start find a way to pay for it out of their own pockets, with a private paramilitary force. After all, it's only business. And it has nothing to do with national security!

(On edit:) I didn't hear the bit. Apparently OP had a decidedly different take on the Sheehan interview and Franken's reaction. Either way, I stand by what I said. BushCo pulled the ol "Better to apologize later than to seek permission beforehand" ploy. Except for that he's not even apologizing later. He KNEW once the shit blew up in his face that they'd just be able to play the "we have to stay now!" game. I'm sure it was part of the plan.

she won. They were respectful, and you can tell how much Franken adores her - in the end, she outshined the rich-famous guy...whom I also love...

That's all I'm trying to say - Gawd I'm being attacked. - I've never been attacked on DU

You have not supported this claim, you dont even seem to be repeating it.

get a little over the top sometimes.

and you don't even know me.

she debated franken a little bit, chosen desriptive words and the nuances of each word are not really that much of a concern, I got what oto was saying

And I was making a mountain out of a molehill because I responded to it as if he had meant it?

We arent talking about nuances of words, it literally said that Al Franken thought his fame would make Cindy back down.

I've got more important things to worry about and it's pretty sad that you don't.

Not that I would have taken such a juvinille smear personally if it had been sensical.

The poster posted something I didnt agree with that he later admitted wasn't the right choice of words for what he was trying to say and then you decide to take a swipe at those of us who disagreed with what was clearly written in the original post.

And because of this I am a loser, because I have nothing better to do than respond in threads to what people write in thier posts.

the poster made a few comments about Franken and Sheehan debating the war issue (which I am interested in because I know he has a tendency to be all mushy and lame sometimes while I know where she stands) and then people including you start jumping all over oto.

I was trying to stop the senseless dogpile.

The OP had clarified his opinion and that part of the discussion had ended.

actually on second thought, I'm tired of talking about nothing. I'm just glad to hear Sheehan debated Al about the war.

for something barely worth mentioning.

pathetic.

Im sorry that you didnt feel that sentance was something worth mentioning. But since when is it your job to tell other people what they are allowed to discuss on this forum.

I wasnt splitting hairs, I wasnt interpreting nuance, I disagree with what was clearly writting in the post and found out that the original poster hadnt intended to write it.

Then you came on and decided after the discussion was already over to go after the 'hair-splitters' to get us for 'jumping on' something you dont think we should have discussed.

For all I know the poster is right in their conjecture regarding Franken's attitude.
But I don't worship Franken and get all pissy any time someone doesn't praise him.

That's part of why people aren't agreeing with you. Franken isn't talking about staying in the war to see it through-he's talking about planning out the situation, making plans to get out and fixing what we have broken. That's a lot different than what you are saying.

Like I said in my OP, Sheehan Was "Kinda" Kicking Franken's Ass. It was meant to be endearing - I love Al Franken.

His wishy, washy stance on Iraq is pitiful - I don't even think he's buying his own shit after listening to this interview...

Or automatically "getting their asses kicked" by her?

Al argued that we should stay because he still thinks there might be some way to help.

He wouldnt have won this debate with a brick wall, his position is pretty weak.

Regardless Cindy did a very good job of articulating her position.

Al's a good guy, if he doesn't agree with Cindy at least they're both civil about it. Is this more about saving lives or being right?

Al and Cindy had a discussion where Al explained his opinion and Cindy hers. The 'ass kicked' comment is the perception of the original poster who thinks that Cindy's position was much stronger.

Does Al need to have people on his show who disagree with him so they can explain their position and discuss inportant topics, yes, I think he probably does need to do this.

And of course this is about saving lives, the justification behind each of thier arguments, but if you dont know what the right way to save lives is, how exactly are you going to save them?

about his stand on Iraq.

They just keep their mouths shut and let him keep stating his view. People tend to back down when it comes to celebrity. Sheehan outshined him.

in spite of all the petty sniping at you for it.

that's how weak he sounded. He should have just conceded.

I agree with you. It would not be easy to confront people who have as much celebrity-hood as he does. Even if he is wrong. :)

kicking pompous ass. I like Franken. I think as a whole he's a pretty good guy, but he can be pompous.

and he didnt seem the least bit pompous in this segment. He actually seemed to be aknowledging the weakness of his position to some small extent. We need Al to lose this argument a few more times, his mind can be changed.

Al and Cindy had a very respectful brief debate over staying versus withdrawl, I dont see why people have to make derogatory comments about Al here.

My post wasn't meant to be "derogatory" about Franken. I just enjoyed the exchange and since they were debating an issue, I think she came out on top and I was thrilled.

Franken is a long time famous guy, don't think for one moment it doesn't effect him.

I was just commenting to the OP that Cindy can kick ass and that Al can be pompous. I don't consider that derogatory or disrespectful. If he and Cindy had a pleasant interview then good for them.

In a good way.

Franken stuck to his completely unsupported DLC talking points, and Cindy buried him with reality.

Hopefully this will begin to sink in with Al. What he's saying -- about sticking around in hopes that something good will come of it -- is nonsensical.

5.5mb
http://GlobalFreePress.com/mp3/cindy/cindy_af_aar-01-27-06.mp3
(missed the beginning but the clip is bout 14min long - no commercials)

peace

Let's get the troops home!!!! Only stupidity will keep our troops there. I expect stupid.... since this country allowed this evil little dipshit for a "leader" to do what he has done. George Bush should be the poster child for every Brat.