Home > War-Hawk Republicans and Anti-War Democrats: What’s the Difference?

War-Hawk Republicans and Anti-War Democrats: What’s the Difference?

by Open-Publishing - Thursday 6 October 2005
12 comments

Edito Wars and conflicts Parties USA Cindy Sheehan

by Cindy Sheehan

The past week in DC found me in many offices of our elected officials: Senators, Congresspersons, pro-war, "anti-war," Democrat, Republican. With a few notable exceptions, all our employees toed party lines.

Thanks to those who met with me, because, except for Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D-Ca), I was not their constituent. And I believe the Republicans who met with me, whether they knew it or not, were breaking with their leader on this, since he was too cowardly to meet with me.

The War Hawks I met with made my skin crawl. They so obviously are supporting a war that is not in our nation’s ibest nterest, nor is it making us more secure.

I heard from Sens. Dole (R-NC) and McCain (R-AZ), and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) about 9/11 and "fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over there." That made me sick. George Bush and his lying band of imperialist greed mongers exploited 9/11 and our national terror of other terrorist attacks to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our country. Now, in the aftermath of those lies, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are dead and almost 2000 of our brave young men and women. What makes the Iraqi babies and families less precious than ours? The crime that these people committed was being born at the wrong place at the wrong time. George took his war OF terror to their doorsteps. I even asked Sen. Dole when she thought the occupation would be able to end and she was incredulous that I would even think of Iraq as an occupation, she sees it as a liberation. I really wanted to know how many of them do we have to kill before she considered that they were liberated.

The War Hawks (or war-niks, as I like to call them) also use the rationale that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. I asked Sen. Dole three times where Saddam got those weapons, and she wouldn’t answer me. Because the smiling, kind, patronizing War-Hawkette knew where Saddam got the weapons. He got them from the USA. Saddam was a bad guy, but he was our bad guy (see the famous picture of the grinning Rummy shaking Hussein’s hand) until he decided to sell his oil to Russia and France for Euros...then "oh my gosh, Saddam kills his own people!!"

We didn’t care about Saddam killing his own people after the first Gulf War when George the First encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam. We didn’t care about the Iraqi children dying during the Clinton years from the bombings and the sanctions. All of a sudden in March 2003 those things became so important that it was urgent that our troops invade Iraq. Besides, the memo to Congress where George asked for the authority to invade Iraq specifically mentions WMD’s and terrorism, it says nothing about Saddam being a "bad guy" or spreading "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. The reasons for our continued occupation change as fast as the old ones are proven lies.

It was horrible to talk to these three warmongering Republicans, I almost felt like I had to take a shower after each visit, but they did not affect my resolve. Congresswoman Musgrave was openly hostile when we were ushered (by her very nice staff) into her office. Ms. Musgrave actually has a son in the service but she got very defensive when I asked which branch of the service her son, who is stationed in Italy, was in. I was asking mother to mother, but she basically said it wasn’t any of my business. I told her she must be very worried about her son and he would be in my prayers.

I know that it is hard to have a child in military service whether in Iraq or Italy. She also "supports the president" 100%. Do these politicians not realize that the people are withdrawing their support for this war and for this president at an unprecedented clip? To support George at this point is to support a sinking stone. To support George at anytime, is and was, a mistake of tragic and immense proportions.

The War-Hawk Dems I met with were equally, if not more, disheartening. Although my meeting with Sen. Clinton (D-NY) went well, I don’t believe she will do anything to alleviate the suffering of the Americans in Iraq or the Iraqi people. I don’t believe that sending more troops is the solution, it will only aggravate an already untenable situation. We met in NYC with Sen. Charles Schumer’s aide, who told us that the Senator thinks the occupation of Iraq is a "good thing for America" but he wouldn’t elaborate on why. The aide was asked if the Senator had a vested interest in keeping this war going, because the Senator is certainly not stupid enough to believe that this misbegotten, misadventure in the Middle East is good for anyone. I don’t think the people of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi would agree with the Senator that this illegal occupation is a "good thing."

The "Anti-War" Dems perplex me the most, however. Except for the good guys, like the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus and a few Senators, the Dem party line is that we must allow Iraq a window of two months time and after the referendum on the constitution this month and the parliamentary elections in December, it will be time to attack the failed policies of George and his cabal of liars.

In my meeting with Howard Dean, he told me that the Iraq issue was "hard" and the new Dem "Contract with America" is going to have 10 points and the first one is going to be "Universal Health Care." I told Mr. Dean that if the Dems didn’t come out strongly against the war and against George’s disastrous policies, we were going to become irrelevant as a party (which is already happening) and the "hard" issue should be the one that is worked on the hardest! I’ll admit that the issue doesn’t seem so hard to me: George and his sycophantic band of criminals lied to the world; too many people are dead for the lies; too many people are in harm’s way for the lies; it is time to bring our troops home. I am just hoping against hope that the war is on the Dems’ contract somewhere. George is always pulling out the old saw that what he does in sending our children to die and kill is "hard work." I hate to see that same adjective used to describe bringing them home. The war issue is not complicated: wrong to invade and wrong to stay. Bring our troops home. Simple.

I think if one is not speaking out right now against the killing in Iraq, one is supporting it. I believe that the members of Congress who have always been, or are now, opposed to this war, need our 100 percent support, admiration, and encouragement. Everyone else needs to be prodded in the right direction. I implored every member I spoke to this past week (and during our bus trip) to lead our country out of the desert. I believe that if they did, America would follow them through fire to bring our troops home.

Finally, I was harrassed at the Capitol Building by a thug security guard who screamed at me to get out of the building until my next appointment. I complained to another security guard about the disrespectful treatment that I had received from the other guard and he said that most of the employees were "Republicans" and they didn’t appreciate what I was doing. I have news for them: this is not about politics, to me, this is about flesh and blood. This is not about right and left, this is about right and wrong. 19 troops were needlessly killed in Iraq this past week. 19 families were destroyed senselessly and avoidably. Hundreds of innocent Iraqis were killed for just being home that day, just being out shopping, or just going about their daily lives. An average of almost three of our young men and women are killed everyday in George’s abomination. While the War Hawk Repbublicans are wrongfully supporting a wrongheaded war and the "anti-war" Dems are hemming and hawing about the politics of this administration’s misguided and evil policies, how many more families will get the news that their lives have been destroyed in the tragic meantime?

What are they waiting for?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1004-20.htm

Forum posts

  • Our "Public Servants" have decided that they do not serve the public, they just serve the military industrial complex who shares the booty with them....the lowly "security guards" are too stupid to know any better Cindy, they are rude and shrill for George. They do not know that the Capitol Building is the property of the people. Most probably have about a 7th grade education and a gun so that explains why they would shout and bully an American citizen who visits a publically owned facility

  • The difference is approximately 1 micron.
    cheers, jt

    • Hundreds of Iraqui people have died this last few weeks.

      In the last few years, thousands have been killed by the american troops and pilots.
      George bush maintains that he hears voices, from god, but more likely from the aerospace/armaments industries.
      All america claims to be saving the Iraqui people, whilst in short, america is the new enforcement arm of the fools who seek a greater israel, the jews and capatalists who seek to enslave the world in a state of constant turmoil, war, and senseless consumerism, the war machine makes money, and requires operatives.

      Because above all, the owners of the war machine need dumb-ass fools like sheehan to supply more sons, more daughters, more baby-faced fools willing to stomp the jackbooted trail on behalf of the wannabe emperors.

    • They said the same of the biggest LIB Prez ever ’Wilson’, that he talk to God.

      Look what happen he made the UN.

      Boy did God give him the wrong message.

    • ’jews and capatalists’ ..anytime you see these together in a post its an ACLU guy talking.

      Anti America all the way...

    • I think its time for a history check, your Wilson chap died about 25 years before the United Nations was formed.
      Who are you listening to ?
      Woodrow in most foreign history books say he had a go at creating the League of Nations but some God fearing member of congress put the boots to his fourteen points idea.
      Instead he had to settle for The Nobel Peace Prize, established from the profits that Albert made from supplying munitions for war.
      So if he was talking to God he was told to take the money.
      Did he confirm receiving this message.
      cheers, jt

    • I can see this is just not one of your better days.
      cheers, jt

    • Auntie- American???
      Or uncle Sam?

      ACLU?, nah brother, check my I.S.P., Im just another joe soap, with my 10 cents worth, thing is I arent even american. Just a concerned citizen of the planet, concerned that the war machine is bankrupt, and the empress, queen george, has no clothes.

      I mean, nobody really minds if politicians are gay, but when george and karl start paying money for sexual services, well then, that is outrageous. Just who is.....

      http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=rove+gay+prostitute&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

  • Bush and his gang of neoconservative thugs in suits must hang together or they will assuredly hang separately. The Entire Republican Party is absolutely committed to the Fundamentalist Right for votes, cash and support, which is given unconditionally because they think God has called Bush to fight evil by invading Muslim countries and gain land, oil and room to invade other countries. The entire Republican Senate votes in a solid bloc for Bush regardless of how stupid the proposed legislation might be. The Democrats don’t know how to handle Bush’s claim that God has called HIM or wants the separation of church and state. Their timidity is appalling and they paid for it in the last election and unless they change their approach they will lose again even if Bush is incompetent, lazy, petulant, irritable, and deceitful. His supporters are still solidly for him and they disregard any negatives against him. They still think he had "noble motives" to invade Iraq. The stupidity quotient of Bush supporters is way out of decent limits.
    Peter fredson

  • Anti-War Dems like Cindy Sheean puzzle me. Not only does she not get the war in Iraq she doesn’t get 9/11. Bush created 9/11 so he could then go to war. It isn’t at all that Bush is manipulating a Terror attack. He caused the terror attack. Now the next question is why then think there is such a thing as an anti-war Democrat? Surely by now it is obvious to everyone that we have a political system that has the H-bomb and is absolutely not accountable to anyone without one. Partisan politics is a matter of graft, not a matter of principle. It is called the spoils system of governance. Pork, in other words, is paramount and ethics be damned.

  • Cindy, thanks for telling it like it is. The war is a pack of lies and anyone who thinks otherwise is underinformed and believes propaganda. All those Dems who back the war are people we should vote out of office along with the GOP in 2006 so we can get rid of the Bush regime and take back our country.

    I wish you would run for office Cindy. I would vote for you.

    Rock on, Sister!!!!