Why the anti-war movement cannot be trusted; Cindy Sheehan arrested at Petraeus hearing

I wondered who the protesters were. I watched the hearing this afternoon, live.

This time I will have to agree with your reasoning. Are you shocked?

how can you be rational to a bunch of liars?

Wars are not rational acts.
What we are seeing now is exactly what was happening in the other illegal war in my lifetime.

Read your own article. They were arrested near where the hearings were to take place 'shouting in a hallway". And our leaders have shown themselves time and time again to be very disconnected from reality.
While 'shouting in the hallway' may be 'somewhat rude', you can bet that they were barred from the hearing room which I would consider 'somewhat rude', and I would certainly consider having my son killed so that British Petroleum and Bush's American oil friends were not barred form Iraqi oil profits to be a tad bit more than rude.

I'm sure you would have liked to see them "tasered."

Newshound, must say I am a little shocked, but appreciate the agreement here.

Chive- I think they have a right to have whatever feelings they do. Protest on your own time do not interupt people who are having a rational discussion of the problems facing Iraq. Respect for America and the Congress are as important as any other government function. They will never have my respect until they can respect the Generals and those that have an opposite view.

Dan I did read the article and they were arrested in the hallway and in the hearing room. If you watched it on tv you saw several of them hauled out.

I guess losing a child in a senseless war can make you pretty darn passionate!

They probably wanted to shoot them.
Oh well maybe next time.
bush would surely pardon the shooters and give the worthless medal of freedom , he has so often soiled , to them.

It is good to see the irrational people spilled over on to this thread

These was a bunch of war protesters taken out of the hearing room, I thought then, why were they even allowed into these hearings, Why, couldnt they watch them on tv like all the rest of us. I think they belong to a group called pink or something like that. I think it is very rude to disrupt someone elses speech,
I wasnt aware that she was in this group. I should of known, even after she said, she was giving this up. Just like a Dem cant believe a word they say..

The anti-war protesters arrested are no more of a disgrace to America than the Bush Administration is.

Was Sheehan wearing a pink crown?

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/War_criminal_cries_get_protesters_quickly_0910.html


And for the record, I didn't believe anything Petraeus was saying, in my opinion he was trying to make the situation in Iraq look good, when in fact it is a disaster!

Gather's formatting irritates me.

I'll try to make this a link.

Raw Story

Cindy Sheehan sacrificed her son for this war and the president wouldn't even give her 5 minutes of his time. If he had met with her upon her first request, none of us would have ever heard of her. What has Mr. Bush sacrificed for his war? Maybe some popularity points, but nothing real. He can't even take 5 minutes to listen to a grieving mother because she disagrees with him. As one mother of a dead female soldier put it, "He's planning a wedding and I'm planning a funeral."

Shari-

While I appreciate her sacrafice. It is not her right to demand things. Her son enlisted because he believed in the war and wanted to serve his country. The rest of her family does not even agree with her. I understand she is grieving but she should seek help not retribution. Based on her record I think the Secret Service might have had a problem with giving her five minutes.

Again, I have to agree with pubbie. I wouldn't call her a disgrace. She's an embarrassment.

She seems to me to think she is the ONLY mother to loose a son in that war. It's an ego trip for her and I bet she's making money at it too.

Protesters in the hall and in the meeting room? Sounds a little bizzare to me. Protesters are usually kept out of the building. Something political going on here?

Okay, I admit I don't know much about what she has done, only how her story started. I could be wrong about her.

Col-

Senate and house members were allowed to include guests. I imagine some anti-war democrats gave them passes.

MDP I watched the 'RAW STORY' clip and saw several hauled out, Cindy Sheehan not among them, as she was arrested in the hallway prior to the hearing as your article indicated (had you read it.) and MDP it is her right to demand things like an honest answer as to why her son was asked to go fight a war that was based on evidence Bush knew to be false when he used it. It is not only her right but the duty of all of us to demand an answer. You and I and the vast majority of Americans are the ones failing in our duty, not her.

Disruption is the only thing on their agenda. Heaven forbid there should be something constructive to come out of their demonstrations.
If you are going to play the game, then you play by the rules. If you want to cheat or break the rules, you are disqualified or as in this case, removed and possibly arrested.

Dan,

She can advocate for whatever she wants but it is not her right to make a mockery of the United States Congress and our government. We can have a rational discussion without hurling terms like "war criminal" at a United States General who is serving his country. If you cannot see the travesty in that you are out of touch with American Principles. You make a claim:
"it is her right to demand things like an honest answer as to why her son was asked to go fight a war that was based on evidence Bush knew to be false when he used it. It is not only her right but the duty of all of us to demand an answer."

We do not know he knew it was false. Actually to the contrary we know that they made these weapons, used these weapons against the IRanian troops and his own people, and was storing them. What he dont know is what happened to them. By the way I did read the article and it said it was not sure where she was arrested but she was a part of the group that caused the disruptions. Finally to your last point.

"You and I and the vast majority of Americans are the ones failing in our duty, not her."

That is wrong. I would never demean myself or my country by acting like a spoiled brat because everyone does not agree with me. Her son disagreed with her when he left. And the rest of her family disagrees with her she has a right to her opinion but not to demand it be counted more than anyone else and does not have a right to make a mockery of our government

This government is surely as deserving of mockery as King George's was. As to not knowing the WMD claims were false !!! are you kidding? of course he did. Not just the UN inspectors but all our people on that team said there was no evidence, the CIA said they had no evidence, The administration claimed he was building atomic weapons with Uranium from Africa and even though the CIA told them the evidence was probably false they sent a man to Africa to check in diplomatic channels and when he said there was no evidence, Dick C 'inadvertently' outed the mans wife as a CIA agent. This administration has been nothing but a pack of liars about Saddam and Iraq as an imminent threat to the US. Saddam's sin was not gassing Kurd (decades ago and no body cared then, either), it was not 'being threat to the world peace and security' (that was what the reactions to the Kuwait invasion and the UN sanctions were about). It was not supporting the Islamic Jihad. (He was a secularist and suppressed all religious factions with political aspirations.) It was refusing to cut British Petroleum and any American companies in on the development of the oil fields, when the sanctions were going to be lifted, that caused his demise. Cutting into the profit potential of Bush's backers and T. Blair's patron and giving it over entirely to rival companies simply could not be allowed.

Wow, I learn something new from a gatherer everyday!

Regardless of your political view, her tactics are wrong. But if she wishes to continue acting the fool, best of luck to her...

MDP what is they say....Well behaved women rarely make history. This woman lost a son in a non sense war...I would be shouting from the rooftops too.

William M-

first off, the general IS a war criminal

That is just plain false. The war was a declared war with the authorization of the President and the United States Congress. The General's job is not to refuse to engage because of questionable international law. The generals swears and oath to the United States. The only thing our chain of command has to answer to is the Consitution and its requirements were met.

Apparently you are not old enough or dont read because we know Saddam used WMD against the kurds and the Iranians.

Then you ask about the term war. War is a term that is used losely we can use the term conflict because the congress gave the president the authorization to use force which in modern terms in the equal of "war"

'first off, the general IS a war criminal'
That shocked me
Also, when people talk about how Bush is conducting an illegal war I think everyone forgets that it was Congress that voted for us to go. Sen Clinton and Sen Obama were two who voted for the war.

William M,

I am so glad that DailyKos has infected our younger generation.

The General is nto a war criminal and before you through those terms around you need proof. You claim that the general oath to the consitution apparently does not matter because the administration is not respecting it. Tell me how.

"he HAD NO WMD"

Many experts will disagree with you. I will take their word over yours

" if this is war, lets mobilize and have a draft."

fine but I am sure you friends will have a problem with it. We are getting the job done without such a draft which is a great statement about our country.

You take WAR a little too literaly when Congress gives the power to use force it is the next best thing and is consitutional. Sorry you dont like the war but that does not make the generals war criminals or the administration evil.

Oh, come now, William. We all know that occupations are always legal in the first person, as in "our occupation." It is only in the third person, as in "their occupation" that it might be illegal. And there is an "e" in illegal by the way.

Cindy Sheehan is not the issue, but the "right" is extremely skillful at changing the subject. The "left" falls for it every time.

The issue is reflected in Sen. Warner's question to Gen. Patraeus. Is the current strategy making the U.S. safe? Patraeus couldn't answer. He said he didn't know, and essentially hadn't thought about it.

That's the issue, for anyone on the "left" to stay focused on - if that's not asking too much!

No, Steve Cindy is my issue with this article. It is her lunacy. Second, the question isnt the generals question to answer he is a general in charge of the Iraqi mission that is the questions he should answer not questions he cant or shouldnt because it is not his job

I'm not for pulling out of the war, but I'll leave Ms. Sheehan alone. I have no idea what it feels like to lose a child because of something you are against in the first place.

Modern. With all due respect, the issue is reflected in Sen. Warner's question to Gen. Patraeus. Is the current strategy making the U.S. safe? Patraeus couldn't answer. He said he didn't know, and essentially hadn't thought about it.

You can focus on trivia if you want to.

Steve, I understand your concern, but fail to see the big issue here. The general is in charge of our troops in Iraq. The question Warner asked had to do with the war on terrorism that question is better asked of the President, CIA, and FBI. Global policy is never the buinsess of the general. If he was asked if they strategy made soldiers safer or the Iraqi people safer that would have been a good question.

Modern: "...but fail to see the big issue here."

Yes. I agree. You apparently fail to see the big issue here. Warner's question was the whole point. I would suspect that Warner, a conservative, republican senator from a conservative, military state, would know if he was addressing the issue with the appropriate person.