Mr. Hammill, you really meant to say that "impeachment would prevent the Democrats from getting reelected and moving forward with their corporatist agenda."

I truly hope that Cindy's courage is contagious, and that a sufficient number of voters in San Francisco catch it.

Unseating Pelosi, an elitist hack and a complicit enabler of President Unitard's war crimes, would send out an international shock wave that might precipitate a Winter of Love from coast to coast. If Cindy's election coincides with the election of a president open to progressive ideas and change, so much the better.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Go Cindy! ♥

Go get'em Cindy. Don't let those Obama-lovers get you down.

The Obama-ites seem to be throwing their support to Pelosi in the California 8th, even though there is ZERO chance of a Republican winning this district. So much for Obama's movement supporting genuine progressive, antiwar politics.

These same Obama-loving elites even challenged congressman Kucinich in Cleveland. Once again, there was no chance of a republican winning the gen. election so why did they do this? Thankfully, Kucinich's well-organized union working class base saved his district from the dominant big-business Obama-yuppie branch of the Democratic party.

One of the few good things to come out of times like these is the people who rise to the occasion.

Thank you Cindy for all that you do.

If you can, start planning now to get to CA next fall to help on her campaign.

Rain falls on the just and the unjust

AP - 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
KABUL, Afghanistan - A roadside bomb attack on a patrol of Dutch soldiers killed the son of the Netherlands' top military officer on Friday, a day after his father took command of the country's armed forces, officials said.

I'd love to see Sheehan get elected and Pelosi get tossed out on her bum. I doubt seriously that it will even be close, though. It doesn't matter that Pelosi really hasn't done jack since becoming House Speaker--her constituents are going to vote to keep her in office because it's "historical" to have the first woman Speaker. As if historical means anything if you don't use the power that it gives you.

The poster behind Cindy reminds me of a passage from (of all things) "The Rough Guide to Brittany and Normandy":

"[E]loquent testimony to the futility of war is afforded by the German cemeteries, filled with soldiers who served a cause so despicable as to render any talk of 'nobility' or 'sacrifice' simply obscene."

It must be desperately hard for Americans to face up to the unworthiness of the cause for which Casey Sheehan and 4,000 others have died, but they'll have to face up to it sooner or later.

As always, Obama and the Obamamaniacs are all about talking about 'change', but don't do anything about it.

I saw some Obamamaniac going on about how it was a movement to change the Democratic Party. Yet, we know we currently have in Congress and in the Dem party leadership positions a whole crew of people who are pro-war and fully bought off and supportive pushers of government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.

Given this, if you are going to see 'change' in the Democratic party, you have to see a whole lot of internal political fights to drive these people out of these positions. You have to see a bunch of Democratic party primary fights where these pro-war, pro-corporation Democrats are driven out of office and replaced by candidates that will represent us. You have to see contests inside the state Democratic party committees to drive our the pro-war, pro-corporate Democrats from the leadership of the party.

This is what 'change' in the Democratic Party would look like. So, while Obama and the Obamamaniacs may talk about 'change', there is a very real and easy way to see if they mean it. Or if its just talk. Do you see these fights taking place? Do you see in primary after primary across the country the challenges to the sitting Democratic office holders who've refused to end the war, who support corporate give aways, who've refused to pursue impeachment, do you see these sitting Democratic office holders facing primray challengers from people who represent the majority of Democratic voters who want these policies change? I don't.

I see a vast quiet across the Democratic Party. I see a Democratic Party that seems very happy with itself that its managed to avoid the calls to end the war. They all seem happy that they've successfully avoided holding the Bush Cheney crew accountable to the Constitution by impeachement. I see nothing at all happening in the Democratic Party to replace these office holders.

I certainly don't see Obama leading any movement within the Democratic party that would change it. I don't see Obama supporting any primary challengers. This would be very puzzling if you actually thought Obama wanted the 'change' he keeps chanting about. Because the current Congress, both Democrat and Republican, would certainly oppose him once he's President. So, if Obama really wants 'change' like he keeps chanting, then he needs a movement to change Congress. Where is it?

What you do see is this? When CT primary voters wanted 'change' in the last election cycle by denying Joe Lieberman their Senate nomination, Obama was there supporting Lieberman. Now we hear that Obama and the Obamamaniacs are supporting Pelosi.

What you see when you look at ACTIONS, is that Obama and the Obamamaniacs are opposing any real attempts to create change. They are always on the wrong side. No surprise there of course for those who pay attention. The Democratic party is a force that opposes change. It blocks change. Its the first wave of defense against any calls for change from the people.

And Obama is Wall St's candidate. Obama from the beginning was getting more contribution money from Wall St than Hillary of the Republicans. He's been Wall St's candidate from day one. Is anyone really so stupid and naive as to think that Wall St is pouring millions in to finance a campaign to overturn the system that's been making Wall St rich for decades? Hardly.

San Francisco is a beautiful city, but also one of the most expensive to live in. So, you know there is a lot of big money influence there, the corporate elitists of the Democratic party who will steamroll Pelosi back into office. Have there been any polls done? Does Cindy have a chance? I hope so. Go Cindy. Great comments, Little Brother.

Bravo, Cindy.

230 is "crammed"... so she spoke in a men's room... maybe a broom closet?

A true American hero! Thank you for all you do Cindy!

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said that Pelosi, too, is frustrated with the ongoing war in Iraq but believes that impeachment would be divisive and distract Congress from improving the lives of working families.

Uh, can someone tell me what the Democrats have done for po' hard workin' families in the past 6 months? 12 months? 24 months?

Yep, them Democrats have been REAL busy.

Cindy, I know you read this website often.

Cindy, you must ask the question over and over...Why did Nancy Pelosi not raise objections when she was briefed that the Bush administration was engaged in TORTURE? (waterboarding).

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pelosi_did_not_object_to_waterboarding_1209.html

Ask this question over and over in very concise language so the media cannot take it out of context.

Did Nancy Pelosi take impeachment off the table because the administration was threatening to make her complicity in this war crime known? I wonder?

Finally, Cindy, the last question I'd pose is this, it's a KNOCKout-PUNCH:

"Nancy, Vice President Cheney has lied the country into war, tortured, spied on Americans in violation of the 4th amendment without a warrant, outed an undercover agent in a time of war, yet you refuse to perform your Constitutionally mandated duty and hold impeachment hearings. Nancy Pelosi, when and under what conditions would you defend the Constitution of the United States."

"...If I can't make a difference, at least I can try. I will go to my grave trying..."

That's one of the best quotes by you that I've heard yet, so,if you don't mind, Cindy, I'll adopt that as one of the quotes by famous people I use to sign off my e-mails.

"Lefty-type gets cheer from university crowd...

And in other news... the Pope admits he is Catholic..."

Dear Rebel Conservative

Contrary to what you may here from Bill O'Reilly and neocon, David Horowitz, all college campuses are not hot beds of liberalism, and as a matter of fact, CSU San Marcos is in a very conservative area. It is near Camp Pendleton Marine base and there were many ex-Marines and wives of Marines at the event who were very supportive of my work...

As to Pelosi and the torture issue, we are hitting her hard about it and will launch a new campaign on the website soon.

We cannot win without widespread support.

Please go my website to help:
www.CindyforCongress.org

Peace and love,
Cindy..

and to my friend, Nigel...I am honored that you will use my line as your sign off.

Well, still no Obama campaigners have corected me or COMarc. Come out come out wherever you are! Surely there are some full-credentialed Democrats reading this who support Obama AND Cindy.

And COMarc, as far as primary challenges from Obama supporters, against incumbent Democrats in safe blue-dog areas, there have been at least one I know of - the primary challenge against Kucinich which fortunately, Kucinich won.

So the only "change" from Obama if he wins will be to move the Democratic Party further right, while claiming that thay are acually progresives because they stay slightly to the left of the reactionary, Republican party. Just a repeat of the Clinton years. It works just like rachet-wrench - back and forth but with net rotation rightward.

The only hope is that the the enormous disspointment generated after Obmama has been in office a few years will generate the genuinely revolutionary movements needed to save us.

NANCY PELOSI IS ESTABLISHMENT AND AMERICA WOULD ONLY SUPPORT ESTABLISHMENT !

Look around you, there are the Kennedy s. the Rockyfellow s and I don't know lots of ESTABLISHMENT FIGURES !

I MEANT TO SAY "HEAR" FROM BILL O'REILLY....
SORRY!

Yes, citizen Sheehan for Congress!!!! She must win and unseat disHonorable Pelosi.

As for Obama, he seems to be a much more decent and authentic mensch than Hillary, who strikes me as plainly odious. However, that does not mean that, if elected to the presidency, Obama would change anything in depth in this land. In fact, the vagueness of his discourse indicates that he won't.

There is the Mensch and there is the politico, and the first one is not always a reliable index of what the second one will be like.

In citizen Sheehan, on the other hand, they are at one.

Say there Obama. If you are the "progressive" that you claim to be. If you are committed to ending the illegal occupation and continued war in Iraq. If you believe that those that lied us into this insanity must be held accountable. If you believe in social justice, then you, Obama, should be supporting Cindy Sheehan for Congress! Supporting Nancy Pelosi puts you in complicity with Bush and Cheney's atrocities and the shredding of the U.S. Constitution. What say Mr. Obama? As for Hillary? What can one say? Of course we know who Ralph Nader supports. Cindy Sheehan, of course. This speaks volumes, doesn't it?

cygnusx1isahole April 18th, 2008 1:15 pm

You are exactly correct about Pelosi and her complicity. She took away impeachment becuase her part in these horrors would be discovered. As far as I'mconcerned, she should be the first to go.

I met Cindy Sheehan in a anti-war rally in New York and had a chance to look at the pain she and her supporters feel abut the senseless war in Iraq. I admire the work she done in
bringing the peace movement to the fore and awakening Americans to the absurd state of this government and the criminality of the political system that bathes itself in law.

As she and many others have pointed out this is not a government of the people and I wish her well in unseating Pelosi. I also would like to see many other government hacks defeated who are nothing more than a rubber stamp for the military-Industrial complex and the very wealthy, who are extracting as much as they can from the people at the expense of the environment and life on Earth.

However, I do understand why she would reject Obama as one of the same kind of people she is fighting. While we are all cynical and questioning of the political process the people running for office is all there is and that includes Cindy Sheehan. Her rejection of one of the people who did not vote for the war and was against it is questionable. I understand why Cindy would find his continued support to fund aspects of the war worrisome. i understand his record as calculated political gamesmanship to keep him in a position where he is able to perhaps make a difference and change things by running for president. There is no such thing as black and white in politics, unless it is a dictatorship. Obama has captured the youth something new on the American political scene.

Obama holds out some hope where there was none before. I would ask Cindy Sheehan to be slightly more reflective, despite her pain about her loss, while looking at the political landscape of America. Yes, Obama is a single man with a vision and group surrounding him that believes but also have an agenda of their own. But he will require the grassroots support of Americans to really affect change in this country. I believe that he will try to make a change and that is a very serious undertaking a country that is not a Democracy but an Oligarchy.

You as well Cindy, will have to compromise to become electable and move this country to a different reality. If the goal is to create a true Democracy, a government that reflects the wishes of the people, than a genuine understanding of the methods of compromise without the loss of integrity is necessary so that you may defeat Pelosi in fact. . .that after all is the goal. Supporting Obama is an important step in that process.

Cindy, would you be doing all this political work if your son was NOT killed in Iraq?

Getting rid of pro-war Democrats is the MOST IMPORTANT undertaking for anyone in that party. (I'm a conservative.) Until you do that at the grass-roots level, nothing is going to change. As long as the US has a huge military, it will continue to start wars - that's where their profits lie. Getting rid of the military should be Job Number One - no more standing armies. Our reserves and guards can handle any imaginary 'invasion' of our shores - how loony would it be for anyone to invade the US?

Also, we need to change the law so children are no longer soclicted - no one under 25 years old is competent to make such an important decision, and nobody should be preying on our children like that. This abomination must stop - it should have stopped during the American-Vietnam war, but instead they lowered the drinking age - how sick is this society?

Hi Cindy, "off the table" has become a tired old phrase. It would take about one day for a staffer to collect the testimony that has already been collected (no need to form a committe to investigate to dig up stuff as they had to do with Clinton) starting with Scott Ritter's testimony and stack it all up on the table where Pelosi took it off. Correct or not about Pelosi's complicity, she just doesn't want to be the Prez just yet anyway.
So as I've said here many times. Handcuffs! at least three pair. Ukraine did it so think orange!

Hey folks-- don't forget to donate to Cindy's bare bones
campaign at www.cindyforcongress.org!!!!! Her campaign war chest is a pill box compared with Pelosi's. We don't need
Pacific Heights elitist, corporatist snobs representing us average Americans anymore.
Cindy can't change things without SOME money, but she can do alot with much less than Madame Pelosi. Again, Cindy's campaign website = www.cindyforcongress.org.

Most of the DFL were complicit in the war crimes committed by this (illegal) government. That's why they won't do anything - that and the Zionist lobby that controls both parties.

Well, nothing new here - US corporations supported Hitler, even after he declared war on the US (or was it the other way around?).

The war parties will lead us to doom - that is almost inevitable now anyway. How can you salvage a nation that is bankrupt and dependent on exporting terrorism? Selling arms to both sides of every conflict, and involved in the drug trade? Based on the superiority of corporations over human beings - fascism - and following the footsteps of Nazi Germany?

I think it's a little arrogant to claim ownership of the progressive title because you support Cindy Sheehan for congress. From what I know about the race I most likely would not vote for Cindy Sheehan if given the opportunity. All I know about her is that her son died in Iraq and she is well versed in leftist rhetoric. Do you really think the Iraq war is going to end by electing one issue novelty canidates, whose main claim to fame is pulling publicity stunts against the war.
Secondly I pose a question to all of the Sheehan supporters (I would like to note I'm not anti-Sheehan her kind of activism serves a role in the political process). What kind of policy on Iraq do you think Sheehan is going to advocate? A complete withdraw as fast as possible? This is not sound policy, but is often advocated by anti-war types on the left. As much as I despise the fact that we are wasting american lives and treasure in Iraq, leaving the country and saying "well we tried to bring you democracy, but instead we are just gonna leave you as a sectarian mess, because our foolish president thought it would be easy". Others on the left like to point out the Iraqi death toll along with the American death toll in Iraq, which is very appropriate considering it is their country, and the increased mortality is largely our fault. However, these same people don't seem to care what happens to the Iraqi's if we hastily leave their country after breaking it.
My knee jerk reaction to the Iraq war is to pull out immediately, but emotional based reasoning like this is what led us to the state we are in now, we need to advocate for progressive canidates that don't just play on emotions like the conservatives do.
Finally, Cindy Sheehan has zero experience in politics on a national level, besides her one issue advocacy. You can't just show up for Congress with shirts with slogans on them and make speeches against the war and expect to be an effective congresswoman.

There is this interesting little blog by an Iraqi woman that provides some rather compelling sidelights on how some Iraqis view America, its citizens, its soldiers, and its government. Worth a look.

http://www.arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/

Firstly, change does not happen with elitist cowards like you RedRaider.

The Iraq War, aka occupation, is about oil, was about oil and will be about oil. The money wasted should have been used by our government to make the USA energy independent with solar, wind, water and other advanced technologies.

People like you RedRaider ought to leave this country. The USA does not need anymore quiters, liars and cowards.

We have to end the military rule of the US - now. This is the ONLY issue of importance because the military sucks up all the money and our taxes go down the drain creating more death and destruction. Cindy may not be able to do much - but she's a start. You have to keep helping anyone who wants to end fascism in the US - or it will be ended for us the same way it ended in Nazi Germany - and you won't like that, believe me - I saw Europe after WWII and it wasn't pretty.

RedRaider is obviously new to the board. Common dreams covered the story of George McGovern going to congress with a historical analysis of what happens when occupying forces leave. The analysis concluded that violence drops significantly and a political solution emerges fairly quickly. Also John Edwards pointed out in the NH debate that violence dropped when UK forces pulled out of Basra.

A more thorough read of the news also will show that US war policy and interference in the Iraq constitution is causing much of the sectarian conflict. Airstrikes in Sunni land (Anbar province), de-Bathification, election rigging (Anbar province), Baghdad sectarian segregation and oil revenue disenfranchisement are part of a divide and destroy strategy.

The Sunnis were happily waiting for elections under Jay Gartner... elections that came too late and rigged.

Hoytdouglas, I hope you fully grasp the irony in your comments. Instead of commenting on even one point I made in my post you lead off by calling me an elitist coward. You then repeat the common mantra that the Iraq war was about oil (while there is truth in this, repeating this mantra as mere fact doesn't really contribute much to the debate). You end by telling me to leave the country and calling me a quiter, liar, and coward.
Now lets try to follow the incredible irony of your comments. You call be an elitist coward and then go on to profess that since I don't agree with you I must be a quiter, liar and coward and leave the country. How much more arrogant and elitist can you get??? That level of discourse is what I would expect from right-wing radio and Foxnews. The logic in your arguement follows the exact same structure as the arguement that if you don't support the Iraq war you are not patriotic and are a coward. I truly hope you can appreciate the ultimate irony in your comment. Completely ignore all contradictory arguements, because the people who espouse them must be cowards, liars, and quitters.
So your calling me an elitist was merely you projecting your own personal feeling of superiority over other people and your own unrepentant elitism.

p.s.- I will predict now that if Hoytdouglas responds it will probably be another wonderful example of logical fallacy

Hey Red Raider you sound like all the dummies who said pulling out of Vietnam would be a disaster and that every little country in SE Asia would go communist if America failed to prevail. Well America did fail to prevail and no such disaster occurred. To suggest that keeping a lethal offensive force anywhere for one more minute solves problems is foolish, arrogant and wrong.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said that Pelosi, too, is frustrated with the ongoing war in Iraq but believes that impeachment would be divisive and distract Congress from improving the lives of working families..... what the hell??? Nancy that angers me to no end when all you have to do is go to california and see the ultimate in wealth so where r the working families in california living 20 to a room in downtown LA so you can have a nice trimmed home landscape? Americans need their tax dollars for their future and war has no future also can you please allow other people besides the very wealthy and illegal immigrants get some safe and affordable health care? this country is disgusting!

I don't suggest we in anyway expand the war in Iraq as we did in Vietnam. We should have a trajectory that leads to no US troops in Iraq, but the focus of our efforts shouldn't be immediate removal of troops regardless of anything else. The only problem with this approach (gradual withdraw) that will have to be addressed is we can't expect to pull out troops and dictate terms about what Iraq will be like when we are leaving. We have to let Iraq decide what they want to do. US supporting the Maliki government in Iraq is a major barrier to us bringing troops home, we can't support a side in the fight, because this locks our commitment into Iraq for longer. We should take a neutral stance towards Iraq, which will mean letting Iran have a larger role in the development of Iraq, which makes sense considering Irans proximity and ethnic ties. We shouldn't be forcing them to have elections, and pass oil laws and such, just let them figure it out themselves. Eventually this will lead to a total US disengagement from Iraq, the same endpoint as the get the hell out as fast as possible approach, but more likely to be beneficial to the Iraq people.
As for the Vietnam analogy, Communist unified Vietnam wasn't some paradise that our being their was stopping from happening. We should have never gone into Vietnam in the first place, the same as we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. Going into these places neccesitate the formation of exit strategies which are the hardest parts of wars. You have to determine an appropriate endpoint, which has not been done in Iraq. Setting the endpoint in Iraq as a functioning pro-us liberal democracy is foolish. Just as in Vietnam thinking a unified pro-us vietnam would emerge was foolish. Since we are in Iraq, everything that has happened to this point is a topic of another discussion (Bush/Cheney's impeachment/criminal proceedings, getting back civil liberties, and all the other joys of the last 8 years). All my point is is that an immediate withdraw from Iraq now is not in anyones best interest, most importantly it's not in the Iraqi's best interest in my opinion, which to be honest since we supposed went into this war to liberate them, their interest is all that matters, regardless of its impact on the US.

WTF thank you, you spoke for me, as you frequently do.

USAn, speaking as an Obama supporter, I suggest you not put words in our mouths. Kucinich was my first choice, Edwards my second, with considerable reservations about his conversion. I still suspect he's an opportunist. But after researching Obama, I want to see him become President. For a number of reasons, foremost being that I believe he has integrity and second that his past positions have been populist. And I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of Cindy Sheehan. I hope she dumps Pelosi.

If Obama talked like Cindy or Kucinich (and I suspect his views are not all that far from theirs), the corporate media would destroy him. Even now they're not very happy with him. Look at the last debate. Stephanopoulos and Gibson, Hillary's surrogates, hammered on him. In a futile effort to not make themselves look ridiculous, they asked her one uncomfortable question. They couldn't hurt her with it, she was already considered a liar by much of the country over her Bosnia story.

Actually Hillary may be doing Obama a favor by trumping McCain's talking points. Most of the country will have already made up it's mind about the issues she has endlessly carped on.

McCain has been getting a free ride so far, and we haven't even gotten started on his baggage, of which he has plenty. The heaviest of which is his platform, which it would be hard for him to run away from without being labeled a flipflopper. He's done plenty of that already. I can't wait for Obama to go after him.

One thing I like about Obama, the more people get to know him, the higher his poll numbers get.

kathyodat

kathyodat

CindySheehan -
Hi, I didn't intend to disparage your campaign, I was just making the point that, typically, universities typically lean significantly to the left - of course, then there are the likes of Bob Jones, Liberty U, Patrick Henry. I am not American, I am British so I don't listen to the likes of Bill O'Reilly... Here, there is almost literally no conservative presence at our universities - at my uni opinions ranged from Marxist to socialist to social democrats to liberal ( and that was just the professors... ;) ).

Anyway, I wish you all the best, good luck in your campaign :)

Universities lean to the left because statistically the higher your level of education the more likely you are to be liberal. This can be interpreted in different ways, but it is true.

RedRaider -
Indeed

Rebel_Conservative: I subscribe to the school of thought that since liberal ideology is harder to understand than reactionary right-wing politics. It's alot easier to argue that everyone should get a job without any regards to their race, than it is to explain the benefits and reasons for affirmative action. Its easier to rally people against taxes, than to explain how progressive taxation benefits the majority of people. It should be noted however, this doesn't mean that conservatives are not as intelligent as liberals, just conservative arguements are often emotionally based, which doesn't require the exposure to ideas that many liberal arguements do.
If I had never seen a bike I wouldn't know how to ride it, but that doesn't make me less intelligent than people who can ride bikes.

USAn

Here I am. I support Senator Obama, and want Pelosi out of office. Gotta run.

RedRaider said: "You can't just show up for Congress with shirts with slogans on them and make speeches against the war and expect to be an effective congresswoman."

So what makes an effective congresswoman then? Being from an old-money family? What made Pelosi qualified when she first ran? The fact that her father is an old-establishment hack? I would say, being an effective congressperson would require a degree of empathy, an understanding of the issues facing the average citizen and a willingness to listen to all sides of an issue and make an informed decision based on what's good for the people you represent. Nancy of course, does none of those things.

If the US is to survive as a country, there should be somebody like Cindy running in EVERY district. The only solution, besides massive armed rebellion, is to have an average citizen take each and every seat in the house & congress... Currently, the government is controlled by the moneyed class which does not have the same interests as the average citizen. Therefore, all government decisions are based upon what is good for the moneyed class, not the people.

So I say Good on ya Cindy! If I was an American I would vote for you.

armybrat April 18th, 2008 3:54 pm, asked:

"Cindy, would you be doing all this political work if your son was NOT killed in Iraq?"

I have heard that question before. I am not going to speculate about what exactly is implied by this sort of question. Somehow, though, it sounds nasty.

What needs to be said is that people who enter the political battle have diverse motivations for doing so, and the important thing is what they do politically and what they intend to do politically, not what motivated them to become active in the political realm.

Now, on to RedRaider April 18th, 2008 4:15 pm, who, among other things, tells us that "[...] Cindy Sheehan has zero experience in politics on a national level [...]."

First of all, that is a debatable claim. Cindy Sheehan has experience insofar as she has fought a political battle for years throughout this country. Furthermore, she has brought her battle to other parts of the world.

Granted, she has not played the sort of political role on a national level that your run-of-the=mill politico plays, with all the corruption and the ass-kissing to the military-industrial complex that all too frequently comes with that role.

Secondly, even if one assumes that RedRaider's claim is true, methinks that that is an asset rather than a defect, for most of the politics on the national level must be overthrown and changed.

Cindy, you rock!

Are you supporting Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader for president?

Hi Cindy : Good work . Now when are you going to start encouraging the troops to desert ?

"an immediate withdraw from Iraq now is not in anyones best interest,"

How about the interest of the thousands who will die after today because the US is still militarily occupying Iraq?
This generalization is ridiculous. Also, how can anyone read the future, and say with such absolute belief that immediate withdrawal is worse than staying there for years, decades, forever?

One sane voice added to Congress probably won't bring about withdrawal from Iraq anytime soon. But another sane voice will help.

What Cindy Sheehan says about the San Marcos area (we call it North County) is absolutely correct (sorry, Cindy, I was unable to attend last night-you got a good write-up today in the local newsrag 'North County Times'). My daughter graduates from CSU San Marcos next month.

The remaining support for Bush? A lot of it is around here. The haves and the military.

I commend Cindy Sheehan for her bravery and commitment. If we were all like her, we might actually accomplish something worthwhile.

Got more rant-

"an immediate withdraw from Iraq now is not in anyones best interest,"

This statement is almost entirely backwards. It is in almost everyone's interest that the USA withdraw from Iraq ASAP. Yesterday would have been better, the day before better still.
The longer the USA stays, the more the USA bleeds its treasure and blood into the quicksand of imperial idiocy. Things will not get better-they haven't in 5 years and there's no reason they will anytime in the future.
Either the USA leaves or it stays forever and bankrupts itself economically, morally, spiritually.

The thousands who will die, the tens of thousands who will be injured, the women who will be raped by armed men paid for by our taxes, the children blown apart, and so on ad nauseum - continued military occupation and aggression is not in their best interest.

The people whose interest it is to stay in Iraq are the opportunists, the war-mongers, the zealots, the killers.