Monday, July 23, 2007

On the Road Again

Cindy SheehanBelow is a forwarded email we received about the events planned for tomorrow, Monday morning, July 23rd.

(That’s when Cindy Sheehan marches on Washington as a part of her on-going labor against the war in Iraq. If you look at some of the online information, though, Miss Cindy is just the appetizer to the major disruption planned by ANSWER for September 15th, when General Petraeus is due to report to Congress on the state of Iraq)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition is supporting an important anti-war event on Monday, July 23 led by Cindy Sheehan to demand the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Please see below for details. We hope you can join this event.

“March for Impeachment” — Monday, July 23 in DC

This Monday, July 23, Cindy Sheehan will be leading a march from Arlington National Cemetery to the Capitol Hill Office of Congressman John Conyers to demand that he begin impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

These actions are a part of the Journey for Humanity initiated by Cindy Sheehan and the Camp Casey Peace Institute on July 10. Beginning in Crawford, Texas, Cindy and many others have been traveling all around the country to demand the end to the war on Iraq and the impeachment of the Bush administration. She has been submitting regular reports from the road on

The details for the July 23 Washington DC event are as follows:

10:00 am: Gather outside the Arlington National Cemetery metro
10:30 am: March to Capitol Hill office of Congressman John Conyers at 2426 Rayburn House Office Building
12:00 pm: Approximate arrival time at Capitol Hill
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Counter-protest in CharlottesvilleBefore getting to D.C., Sheehan stopped at a number of cities and towns along the way. On Saturday, July 21st, she was in Charlottesville on the downtown mall. Not all of the crowd was friendly, as you can see by the signs being held up. Given that Charlottesville, a university town, is a deep blue blip in an otherwise red state, it was a surprising place to see anyone brave enough to stand up to this icon of the anti-Bush faction of American politics.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

John Conyers, a quisling of the first order, has been rehearsing Bush’s impeachment for several years now. Since he is dependent on the Muslim voters in his district for re-election, his diatribes are often anti-Semitic:

John Conyers, son of a leftist Detroit union activist, represents the largest Arab population in the country. His district includes Dearborn, Mich., nicknamed “Dearbornistan” by locals fed up with cultural encroachment and terror fears from a steady influx of Mideast immigrants.

Conyers, who runs an Arabic version of his official Web site, does the bidding of these new constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them. They want to kill the Patriot Act and prevent the FBI from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings.


Recall that John Conyers held a mock impeachment hearing regarding the Iraq War which devolved into an anti—Semitic hate fest. He featured known anti—Semitic “witnesses” and “experts” that blamed American Jews and Israel for the war in Iraq. Simultaneously, anti—Semitic “literature” was being distributed at Democratic National Committee headquarters…

So Mrs. Sheehan and Rep. Conyers are not strange bedfellows at all. They both paint over the truth with a broad “blame-America-blame-Bush” airbrush.

No doubt the usual pink ladies and fellow-travelers from ANSWER and La Raza will be along for the ride.

These people represent so few of us and yet delude themselves that their very small slice of the long tail is the whole political animal in this country.

“Journey for Humanity” indeed.

[ends here]


Unknown said...

Muslims just do what they are allowed to do.
The ones like Sheehan and Conyers are the true enemies.

mikej said...

In his September, 2002 column "Should a Country That Can't Defend Its Borders Invade Another?," Paul Craig Roberts points out that opposition to the Iraq war is not necessarily limited "to peaceniks and American-hating multiculturalists." Conservative patriots can and do oppose the Iraq war as a foolish policy.

I wonder whether the man pictured with the "Win the War" sign could define what he means by winning. Can you define victory in Iraq?

Dymphna said...


I look at 3 possibilities in considering your question:

1. Germany
2. So. Korea
3. Vietnam

Our decisions to stay in the first two were strategically driven.*Sixty* years on we are still in #1.

Our decision to pull out of the third was politically driven and left millions to die. There is an ethical dimension to this that has never been satisfactorily addressed. But then we only just got around to some kind of compensation to the Japanese-Americans we put in camps during WWII.

If we can stay in one country for more than *60* years, we can stay in another for enough time to allow things to settle. The Iraqi leaders certainly don't want us to leave. Nor do those who have assisted us with such courage.

There are many things wrong with the way the war in Iraq was handled. but a lot of blame can be assigned to the State Dept flunkies there before the 2004 election who deliberately tried to make us lose so their man Kerry would win.

In addition the ME has a steep learning curve...but we've been slowly climbing it.

We are being asked to stay by many people. More than are telling us to leave, especially if we count only the Iraqis. We are being ill-treated and betrayed by our Saudi friends, who are nonetheless afraid we'll leave. That would put them at great risk because all their blooded insurgents would come home and create havoc there.

In addition, leaving now would hand Iraq to Iran on a platter.

The idea of a timetable for withdrawal is unwise as it gives too much information in an asymmetrical situation.

I want to hear what General Petraeus has to say about what it means to "win" -- i.e., finish this engagement to his satisfaction before retiring from the field. Since he was in charge of the 101st Airborne in Iraq in the first year of the war, he has intimate on the ground knowledge of the issues.

The man in the picture is holding up a sign that reads, to me, "don't pull another Vietnam, where the politicians are running scared and determined to hold onto their incumbency no matter the long term costs."

Sheehan is part of group who demand "no-war-no-time-no-how." That is a dangerous foreign policy, much more dangerous than the situation in Iraq. Many of her camp followers do not like us and do not wish us well; they want to see us fail. They crowd the halls of the MSM and academia and they have a large bullhorn.

I do *not* equate these people with conservative patriots who think some conflicts have to be engaged but this was not one of them. They may be right, but otoh, some of these same people only came to that conclusion as the war has progressed. I disagree with that niche as much as I disagree with Sheehan. You don't quit something in the middle, not without large scale betrayal.

To me, victory in Iraq means enough stability politically that the insurgents have been driven out, back to SA and Iran, however long that takes. This, in turn, means that they will be less likely to trail us home and heat things us here.

I would be willing to reassess that definition should the IEDs start going off here.

Geraldo, in the first comment, summed it up well.

mikej said...


I'll confine my response to the final part of your comment, the definition of victory. You wrote, "To me, victory in Iraq means enough stability politically that the insurgents have been driven out, back to SA and Iran, however long that takes."

I'm not sure when Iraq last showed any signs of political stability. Was it under the Ottoman Empire or the Abbasid Caliphate? Oh! I forgot! It was under Saddam Hussein, the guy that we deposed and caused to be hanged.

I particularly take issue with the words "however long that takes." How many centuries will it take to stabilize Iraq, now that we've destabilized it? Can a country whose people no longer even marry for life sustain a multi-generational war fought for altruistic reasons? How does a government that can't even control its own borders expect define the political life of another?

Dymphna said...


You conflate our immigration problems with our situation in Iraq. I consider that a categorical mistake, though you seem to find some moral equivalence that produces a calculation by which you can draw your conclusions.

I don't operate with the same calculus. They are separate issues to me.

Nor are we "defining" this for the Iraqis. We're trying to make enough room so they have space to make some decisions.

Once there, our decisions are of necessity different than they would be were we *not* present.

The cultural issues also seem tangential, too. Can a country whose laws demand legal monogamy assist another country that believes in polygamy? What th'...?

turn said...

Well stated, well debated.

An idea: if we just move a few hundred thousand illegals to Dearborn we can change the demographics enough to throw Conyers out.

Just thinking of ways to make lemonade.

Anybody know what Michigan's voter registration laws are?

(Read somewhere you're a temporary 'lefty'--that's handedness not politics.)

Dymphna said...


unfortunately, illegals vote dmocratic. IOW, the dems sign them up. Dems slant their appeal to those who live life from the pov of victimhood...some people have called it the mommy party.

i understand that: when it comes to my kids i tend toward socialism & think the successful ones ought to give a bit o' the dole to the ones who aren't doing as well. that idea doesn't go over so well with either i'm a mommy party who has learned to be quiet...

yes on the lefty. For sure as of Aug 2nd when i have surgery on my R shoulder. Except for PT cannot take my arm out of a sling for a month. The pain is sufficient that i am actually looking forward to surgery.

Meanwhile for posts i am practicing with the voice recognition program on this laptop. Won't be many comments, tho. Too bad, bec I like to debate commenters like gringo...he makes good points & is always civil.

mikej said...


Sorry, but our inability to control our own borders and our inability to suppress the Iraqi insurgents are symptoms of the same disease. We're simply too cowardly and effeminate to take the necessary cruel steps to do either. Being unable to control our own territory, we might not be around long enough to stabilize Iraq. In any case, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity is much less important than maintaining our own. It's truly amazing that so few "conservatives" understand that.

As far as the cultural issue, I was merely pointing out that today's American, as an individual, does not persevere in long term committments. A nation of such people is not likely to persevere in any national policy that requires sacrifice over a long term. Our enemies can make a long term committment, and know that we can't.

If we had the testicular fortitude to simply take the oilfields of the Middle East and ruthlessly destroy all who oppose us, then Americans might just be willing to fight for their right to tool down the freeway at 90 mph in a dually pickup truck. Very few Americans, however, really give a damn about Iraq or its people for their own sake. I expect that the next (probably Democratic) administration will withdraw from Iraq in 2009.

Imposing democracy on Iraq is a fool's errand anyway. It's already been done once. The Brits left a replica of their government in Iraq in the 1920s. We've seen what became of their noble experiment. What makes you think ours would have turned out differently?

Whiskey said...

Gringo_malo --

1. As a practical matter once we surrender/retreat/withdraw from Iraq and wave the white flag we put a giant "NUKE ME" sign on our cities.

What you reward you get more of. Retreat/surrender rewards the idea that killing enough Americans will cause us to surrender.

With Zawahari on the verge of toppling Musharraf in Pakistan and controlling their nukes, or Iran, I don't think it's wise.

2. The same anti-populist cultural/political elite want surrender in Iraq and Open Borders in America. For the same reason.

Surrender in Iraq puts the Cultural/Political elite in charge. No more influence for young men serving, and people supporting military action. Instead the aristo Hard Left such as Sheehan, Benjamin (made zillions off Berkeley Systems Flying Toasters screen-saver), and Conyers (ethnic spoils pol) will take over once Surrender in Iraq to AQ is achieved.

If you want to close the border you must ISOLATE and DEFEAT politically the elites. This means opposing them and not giving them political victories which they will use to expand their power.

The elites wish to replace Joe Average, with cheap, compliant Mexicans. The only way to defeat this plan is to defeat the elites AND make Joe Average essential (keep fighting in Iraq).

hank_F_M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hank_F_M said...

A March Up Country??

I sometimes sarcastically think that the President should sign one of the withdrawal bills then he and Chaney resign, now the fun part: watching the now President Pelosli try to get the law repealed, declared unconstitutional, or just telling congress she's going to ignore it ?so impeach me!? I assume that she realizes how stupid the idea is and is only trying to force a veto for leverage in the general election. If she were to have any effectivness as president she could not start with a meltdown in Iraq, especilly as a result of her actions. But even if she didn't every country in the Middle East and Europe will explain it to her - the US broke it, the US fixes it.