Senator Schumer Says "Iraq War is Good for America"

[radio4progressives]

This statement is quoted by Cindy Sheehan at a pda meeting back in early October. I heard for the first time late last night after accessing the link in different thread. It isn't shocking to me that Schumer is very much pro Iraq war... he's been fairly consistent with that position. However, it is rather astonishing (to me) that he would actually state that the war was "Good for America" ...

I don't know if anyone else here thinks this is much of an issue, maybe the Iraq War is not that big of deal to DU'rs (?) but for those who think this is a very important matter, and for those who think that Democratic Senators should be held accountable on this issue, and for those who think that perhaps Schumer has been given something of a pass on this matter... you might be interested to hear statement quoted : here's a DU link to this audio, posted by pda member, kevin spidel

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4946098

or go straight to the audio archive link:
http://www.archive.org/download/ToddSmythUDC092505UDC0925050wmv/UDC0925050.wmv

[Dr.Phool]

1. Schumer is another $*&#@^& Bidencrat

Looks like the Zell Millers and other Dixiecrats moved to New York and other points north.

[TankLV]

20. I may not like EVERYTHING that ANYBODY says ALL the time, but I'd

hardly put Schumerl in the same UNIVERSE let alone the same boat as those idiot repuke moles, bidden, zellout and holyjoe.

I does make one pause, tho and wonder WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?!

All in all, Schumer is doing a heck of a great job from where I sit, and he generally has my support, just like "give em hell" Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

These people are NOT stupid, and unlike the PROFEN LIAR & WAR CRIMNAL bunkerboy and his REPUKE pals, I have to give Schumer, Hillary, et all the BENIFIT OF THE DOUBT and my TRUST, only because they have been OUTSPOKEN IN CRITICIZING the REPUKES 100 times more.

[...of J.Temperance]

27. Jaysus, what a completely ABSURD comparison

Likening Senator Schumer and Senator Biden to Zell Miller.

Thanks for making me laugh out loud at your silly statement.

:rofl:

[OKNancy]

2. It's about fourth-hand info, so unless you

hear it from his mouth...

An aide to Schumer is said to have said this to Sheehan.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2380

[radio4progressives]

3. I'll check this out .. but first let me state...

that I have personally spoken with Schumer's staff just following Sunday Morning talk show - during the imbroglio following Murtha's press conference, when Schumer was asked, "knowing what he knows now about 'faulty intelligence on WMD's' would he have still voted to go war in Iraq" and he said yes, absolutely. Astonished at this response, i called his offices the following day and spoke with the staff, and they were very rude to me and hung up the phone on me.

I'll now check out your source.

[radio4progressives]

6. Your source verifies my source....

yes there is a contradiction, Schumer seems to be full of them at times..not unusual for a lot of politicians. But there is an arrogance and Schumer's own remarks on the Sunday talk show, which gives Cindy's quote credibility and my own experience with his staff the following day as mentioned in my previous post.

[wyldwolf]

15. wow. hmmm. Let's get this straight

It's confirmed that your word of mouth claim in the OP is bogus, but you still want to cling to it. For proof, you present to us a completely different quote from Schumer. Oh, and his staff was mean to you (if you even really talked to them.)

[radio4progressives]

21. uh hem... Wolfy, you are being just a bit silly, don't ya think?

I'm going to try and excerise a bit of self constraint in responding to your missive... in other words, i'm going to try very hard in this one post to be polite to you. That means I'm going try to hold back in telling you exactly what I think of this.... incoherent diatribe you posit here.

but i'm not going to spend the rest of the evening on this, i've got far more important matters to deal with.

First you say: "It's confirmed that your word of mouth claim in the OP is bogus, but you still want to cling to it..."

Wrong. I do not say anything of the kind. First, because it isn't "bogus".

What I was referring to are the contradictions in Schumer's own statements. The other poster's source contains the contradictions. Did you happen to read it all the way through?

No, apparently not.

Try reading this all the way through:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2380

For reference, here are the relevant quotes:


"In an interview after her speech, Sheehan told the Voice she was 'so frustrated' by leading Democrats like Clinton 'who should be leaders on this issue, but are not.' Already, she has set up a future meeting with New York’s junior senator this weekend. And she plans to sit down with the state’s senior senator Chuck Schumer, too. 'It’s time for them to step up and be the opposition party,' she said. 'This war is not going to end unless the Democrats are on board with us.'”



UPDATE: According to my sources, the meeting with Schumer did not go well, to begin with, because he refused to meet with her, and instead sent an aide. She asked the aide if Senator Schumer would help in the effort to bring this war to an end, and the aide replied that: "Senator Schumer thinks this war is good for America." According to the source, Sheehan walked out, remarking "Wel, I guess this means Schumer thinks my son's death was good for America." Or words to that effect.


Secondly, you don't have to believe that I called Schumer's office the day after the Sunday talk show where he says "knowing what he knows now he would still vote to go to war in Iraq", he said this AFTER Murtha's press conference a few nights before.. the same Sunday Weekend following the Friday night House session, where the repugs tried to put forward a phony pull out of Iraq resolution suggesting it was Murtha's, the night that Ohio Rep Jean Schmidt tried to pull a fast one with the cut and run quote. Did you miss these events, it was broadcast on C-Span, but it was also repeated on every single cable and broadcast news station.

Did you miss the Sunday Morning where Schumer appears? (if memory serves, think it was Tim Russert's Meet the Press)

This is the event that prompted MY CALL to his office in Washington AND NEW YORK, to let him know the utter stupidity of those remarks given everything the whole world knows now.(Which is why I suspect his Staffer hung up on me)

That you find this hard to believe, is not too surprising. You have made it patently clear that no critisim of any DLC member has any any justification as far as you are concerned. I think you believe in tooth faires too.

But that is your problem, not mine and it also goes to your lack of ability to engage in a bit of independent thinking, not my credibility.

[wyldwolf]

35. uh hem... no,.

I'm going to try and excerise a bit of self constraint in responding to your missive... in other words, i'm going to try very hard in this one post to be polite to you. That means I'm going try to hold back in telling you exactly what I think of this.... incoherent diatribe you posit here.

1. incoherent: Unable to think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner. diatribe: A bitter, abusive denunciation.

My reply was very coherent and far from a diatribe.

Exhibit A: Your opening post in which you claim that Senator Schumer said, "Iraq War is Good for America" but then reveal that Cindy Sheehan said Schumer said it. A more honest post title would have been "Cindy Sheehan says Senator Schumer said "Iraq War is Good for America."

Exhibit B: Poster #2 provides a link showing it was a Schumer aid who said it, not Senator Schumer himself. Honest mistake by Sheehan? Maybe. Did you admit your were wrong? Nope! Because...

Exhibit C: ...in post 3, you still try to lend crediblility to what has been proven to be a lie by quoting Schumer saying something completely different. Then....

Exhibit D: ... you admit there is a contradiction, but still insist Sheehan's "mistake" is credible based on, again, a completely different quote from Schumer and your tale that Schumer's staff was mean to you.

Exhibit E: Poster #14 gives a transcript showing that Schumer, in fact, doesn't sound like someone who thinks the Iraq war is good for America.

That you find this hard to believe, is not too surprising. You have made it patently clear that no critisim of any DLC member has any any justification as far as you are concerned. I think you believe in tooth faires too.

No, I have made it patently clear that any criticism of any Democrat that is "factually challenged" will not go unchallenged.

But that is your problem, not mine and it also goes to your lack of ability to engage in a bit of independent thinking, not my credibility.

Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts. Difficult for you, I know.

[...of J.Temperance]

37. Hello wyldwolf...thank goodness there's two of us batting right now

Eh? I always appreciate your posts.

:bounce:

[wyldwolf]

40. I'm sure you've noticed some characteristics of this type

They take great liberties with "facts." Or, as I like to say, they are often "factually challenged."

Now, I'm not calling them liars, though many of them do purposely fabricate. But most of them have heard the same half truths, exaggerations, and fabrications repeated so often they just repeat them and assume they're true.

When you call them on their "facts" and ask for some evidence, they balk, change the subject, or just ignore the request.

[...of J.Temperance]

42. Yes

Or they accuse the other person of not having the facts...and yes it is a characteristic of all of them.

I've noticed much taking liberties with the "facts", then when called on it back-tracking and just changing the subject or changing for new "facts"

[wyldwolf]

76. Look at posts 39, 47, and 75

Classic example.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pocket]

8. between Cindy and Schumer though

I'll stick with Cindy every time.

[MrBenchley]

11. And when she wins an election, let us know....

[pocket]

12. by that logic, * is more credible than Skinner

assuming * actually won his governorship

[MrBenchley]

13. Hey, if you really hate Democrats so much

don't let the door hit you in the ass....

[radio4progressives]

24. Must you always be such a juvenile MB?

Have you a single intellectually honest thought in your head?

[...of J.Temperance]

29. MrB is very intellectual and I can personally vouch for that n/t

[radio4progressives]

32. Please Provide the Evidence for it...

So far, I haven't seen a single sign of it. just a lot of knee jerk reactionarism...

it's really similar to the "love it or leave it" bumper sticker reactionary jingoism thrown around so much during the Viet Nam war and even now..

[...of J.Temperance]

33. I can't because it's from private discussions

I like MrB, he's a good fellow and I enjoy his input.

[mtnsnake]

63. I'll vouch for it too

I've seen MrB intellectualize previous non-intellectuals into vanishing in a cloud of intellectualized dust on more than one semi-intellectual occasion.

[...of J.Temperance]

67. What are you

A smarty pants :)

:hi:

[mtnsnake]

68. yup!

tryin to be one, anyhow!

I do like MrB's style, though.

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

79. Why?

MrBenchley's "style" is abuse, insults, and disrespect. What's there to like?

Even if you agree with the guy, how can you think his tactics actually HELP your side of the arguement?

[Cha]

18. Please stick around..I

like your Logic!

[DerekG]

9. Yeah, you have to endorse mass slaughter in order to gain credibility

You know, radio4progressives, if you had the blood of 100,000+ men, women and children on your hands, you cudda had some of that credibility.

I confess: I'm bereft of this quality myself, so I'll have to occupy my time praying for the political destruction of my hawkish New York senators.

[MrBenchley]

10. Hey, if you hate Democrats so much

don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[DerekG]

19. I don't care much for corporatists and warmongers

Sadly, a good number of prominent Democrats are worthy of both labels. Excepting stand-outs like Kennedy and Boxer, one has to look to the lower echelons for the principled politicos.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. You already know that I think that you're awesome MrB

:toast: :hug:

[regnaD kciN]

5. If Bush manages to survive the crisis of the past three months...

...and enjoy a rebound in public opinion (which may already be happening) that will allow him to once again get his way with Congress, it will be because of spineless Dems like Biden and Schumer who are always ready to give him a pass, lest they appear "out of the mainstream." :grr:

And what is it about New York's Democratic senators serving as cheerleaders for the war, long after it became clear that the American people had turned against it? While the easiest explanation would be that they were catering to "the Jewish vote" in NY, surely they must have noted by now that the vast majority of knee-jerk pro-Israeli votes are no longer coming from Jews (who, generally, have more varied and considered opinions on the proper tack on mideast issues) but from fundie Christians (who need to keep the pot boiling so that the Second Coming will remain on track :eyes: ), and are thus much more likely to come from the "Bible Belt" than from Noo Yawk City, as the salsa ads put it.

[radio4progressives]

7. LOL! I tend to agree with your perception... The Cristo Fascists

Love to stir it up, aiding and funding on a multi-level effort to "round up the Jews" and send them all back to Israel, so they will all be destroyed when the Second Coming is at hand... (that's what these wackos really think)..

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

14. Schumer Dec 11 Late Edition transcript, doesn't sound like someone

who believes the Iraq war is good for America.

"...BLITZER: President Bush continuing a vigorous defense of his Iraq policy this past week. But is it all becoming part of a partisan political battle here in Washington? Welcome back to "Late Edition." Joining us now from Phoenix, Arizona, the Republican Senator Jon Kyl, and from our studios in Manhattan, the Democratic senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. Senators, welcome back to "Late Edition."

Senator Schumer, let me get your quick reaction to what we heard from Ambassador Khalilzad, responding to Democratic Congressman John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, among other Democrats, that if there's a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, it could result in civil war. What do you make of that?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Well, you know, I don't agree we should have a speedy withdrawal. But I do think that John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and others, when they bring up a point of view, are really part of what this function in America is all about what the Congress should be doing. We really need accountability from the president. I think 60, 66, or 65 percent of the American people think we're going in the wrong direction in Iraq.

And because of acts like John Murtha, whether you agreed with him or not, the president is now coming forward. He's addressed the American people twice about what his plan is. He's going to address them a couple of more times this week. And that's all to the good. In the past, they were just saying, basically, everything's going great. Things aren't going great, and we know that. One of the things that I find a real problem, Wolf, is the Iraqization plan. A year and a half ago we said we were going to begin to turn over military operations to the Iraqi army. At last report, there is only one battalion, 750 Iraqi troops, that can fight on their own. Something is wrong there.

In fact, today I'm sending a letter to the president to send a distinguished delegation of former military leaders, people like General Franks, and General Schwarzkopf, and Colin Powell, to go there and within in a month come pack and report to us why Iraqization isn't working. So I think that whether you agree or disagree, our party's a broad spectrum. You have Joe Lieberman on the one hand. You have John Murtha on the other. But oversight, accountability, asking the president what we should be doing, that's our role and our function.

BLITZER: Senator Kyl, a lot of material that Senator Schumer just raised, among other things, the poll numbers, the latest CBS/New York Times poll that came out this week -- Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for victory in Iraq? -- 25 percent of the American public say he has a clear plan. Sixty-eight percent say he hasn't developed one yet. That's a serious problem for this president.

SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: Actually, it is. And it is a problem to some extent of his own making, but also because of the partisanship of those who would oppose him. In the first place, the president needs to continue to talk about his plan. He's had a plan all along, as Senator Schumer pointed out. What we need to do is make sure that we can stand an Iraqi government up, or more correctly, they can.

And that's occurring. In four days, they'll have their election to determine who will be in their new government pursuant to the constitution that they developed, and then to train up enough Iraqis to provide security in the country. That process hasn't gone as quickly as we would have hoped, but as the ambassador pointed out and as our military officials there will tell you, it's proceeding in an acceptable fashion.

BLITZER: Senator Kyl, do you think it's a good idea, this proposal that Senator Schumer is raising today, to send a distinguished group of retired U.S. military generals over to Iraq to get an eyewitness account, report back on what they've seen as far as the ability of Iraqi forces to take charge?

KYL: Wolf, my guess is that all of those distinguished generals would say, look, we have great confidence in General Petraeus and General Abizaid and General Casey. They're the generals on the ground. Let them make the judgments, report to the president.

And that's exactly what we were briefed on just before we left Washington, a very candid briefing about the number of Iraqis stepping up to be trained, about the forces that are being adequately trained now to take care of themselves.

What we're doing new is basically embedding U.S. leaders in some of those Iraqi units as a way to make sure that they still have our advice but that they're doing the bulk of the fighting, or at least the holding, in some of the areas that we've taken. BLITZER: One clarification, first, Senator Schumer: General Petraeus, David Petraeus is gone now. He's been replaced by General Martin Dempsey to try to train the Iraqi forces.

But go ahead, Senator Schumer. You wanted to respond.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: And General Dempsey has said, at best things are mixed so far. You have to scratch your head and wonder.

A linchpin of the administration's plan, the first thing the president talked about in his first speech was Iraqization. We have been at this for a year and a half and yet there are only 750 troops that can fight on their own.

BLITZER: But, Senator Schumer, that's a very high standard. Thirty or 40 brigades, the Pentagon says, can operate with U.S. assistance.

They can take the lead; albeit, only one brigade can actually go out there on their own without any U.S. assistance whatsoever.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Let me say two things here. First, even among those 30 or 40 brigades, the response is mixed, as General Dempsey has said.

Some of them are making some real progress. Others, while they can fight alongside U.S. troops, when the actual fighting occurs, the U.S. troops have to shoulder almost all of the burden.

But there is a more important point, Wolf, and that is this: If we're not going to have the Iraqis stand on their own, it is going to be a very, very long time for our soldiers to be over there, far longer than most anticipated.

BLITZER: What do you think, Senator? Let's let Senator Kyl respond. Senator Kyl? KYL: There is a lot of naysaying here that all of this didn't happen overnight. Let me go back to General Petraeus. He was the person given the responsibility of this training.

And while he was there, he brought the Iraqi forces up from almost nothing to a point in which they can do a very good job now. Now, is it good enough? No.

Are there enough of them? No. That takes time. Remember that the key problem here was that they were recruiting all of the privates, but all of the general officers had been taken away.

And there was no government, basically, with a civilian head, that was giving the orders that then would be given to the general officer on down to the enlisted people.

And so, you have to establish the government with civilian control; you have to take time to have that officer corps develop and be able to execute the plan of the civilian government and to pass that on down to the soldiers doing the fighting. That takes time. And I think it's really distressing to hear criticism from Americans who are used to having the very best military in the world, wonder why a country like Iraq that doesn't even have elected leadership yet pursuant to their constitution, why they can't snap their fingers and have a military overnight.

It is going to take time. But we can be patient about this.

BLITZER: We're going to take a quick break, Senator Schumer, but go ahead and respond.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: I was just going say, you know, one of the questions I think most Americans would be asking is, how much time? Now, obviously, it wouldn't be this slow but if we were to only add 750 troops a year, that would be way too slow for everybody.

How quickly can it happen? What is a realistic assessment? We have been hearing overly optimistic assessments about Iraqization for a long time.

That's why this distinguished delegation -- retired military people, people who generally been supportive of the war, the people who I have mentioned -- let them come back and give an independent assessment.

I think that would serve the president well. It would serve the American people well. Yes, John, it does take time. I couldn't agree more.

But how much time and how well is it going and what could we be doing to make it better? We have to admit that 750 troops in a year and a half is not a very good record.

BLITZER: All right, Senators, stand by because we have a lot more to talk about -- very busy week here in Washington. We'll continue our conversation with both of these senators after a short break.

Later, we'll get some insight into next week's Iraqi elections from Qubad Talabani, the Kurdish political spokesman here in Washington. He's the son of Iraq's president. ..."

[wyldwolf]

16. now, dang it! You done busted up another Dem bashing party!

[radio4progressives]

22. Yes, this is a December transcript...

Schumer did begin back peddling... not too surprising, and i suspect I'm not the only one who called his offices in response to his previous appearance on one of the Sunday Morning shows (i think it was MTP) ...

if you can post THAT transcript, which is the time frame in discussion that would be useful too. As mentioned earlier, it was the Sunday that had all of the pundits going bonkers over Murtha's call for 6 month troop draw down plan.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

64. Schumer Oct 23 Meet The Press Transcript

Mostly they talked about Harriet Meiers.

In this transcript Schumer says he wouldn't change his vote on the IWR knowing what he now knows.

Kerry used to say that too, but then changed and last I heard he said no absolutely not.

I think the question is meant to be if you were in the same situation right now, with all that you now know would you vote for the IWR?

I suspect that the Dems who say they would have voted the same were somewhat defensive and projecting themselves back to that point in time. It takes them a while I think to actually fast forward to now and say no of course I would not.

The hoopla re Murtha was on the Nov 20 talk shows, but I didn't find Schumer on MTP that week, or LE. "This Week" 1 hour transcripts cost $20, and he wasn't listed as a guest that week although they don't always list all the guests in the summary.

Anyhow here is excerpt followed by the link:

"...MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, do you believe that comments from the White House are still credible?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, Tim, I have a different take on this than Kay Bailey Hutchison. As you know, I was very involved in this. I had called for an investigation, had helped George Tenet talk to the FBI about why he was outraged and asked for a special counsel.

Patrick Fitzgerald is above reproach. He is totally non-political. He is a prosecutor's prosecutor. And nobody has called into question his motives. He's the type of prosecutor who will not indict just because an indictment would make headlines or he's done this for a year and a half. Nor would he shy away from an indictment if it were for real.

I, for one, am prepared to say here this morning that I will abide by Patrick Fitzgerald's decision. I think we all should. I think that Kay and George should do the same. Because Patrick Fitzgerald is a prosecutor's prosecutor, and we should abide by that. I would say one other thing about this. I think the president should make clear--he's been all over the lot on what he would do if there were indictments in the White House. And I think the president should make clear what his standard will be before prosecutor Fitzgerald makes his decision, so no one thinks that what the president does is aimed at a particular person, whether it be a secretary or the top people in the White House.

So I think it would be very, very advisable for the president to say: "Here is what my standard will be in terms of whether these people will remain in their positions should they be indicted." But Fitzgerald, prosecutor's prosecutor, totally non-political. I am willing to accept his decision, and I have no idea what it will be. I think everyone, Democrats and Republicans, should do just that.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, there's been a widespread discussion that this is bigger than just Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame and White House aides; that it really goes to the core of the Iraq War, what cases were made to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and other systems and other analyses and other intelligence data. Based on what you now know today, do you regret having voted for the war?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, no, Tim, because my vote was seen and I still see it as a need to say we must fight a strong and active war on terror. But I would say this, Tim, and I would take your point in a slightly different direction. I think what we've seen in the last several months is a White House in some real degree of disarray: the war in Iraq where nobody knows what the game plan is; the budget, which is just out of control and nobody seems to have a handle on it and could wreck our economy; the prescription drug bill, the major accomplishment and everyone's confused about how it's going to be administered. The Web sites don't even work. And, of course, Katrina.

And, you know, when President Reagan was in a similar situation in his second term, he brought in a whole lot of new faces, Howard Baker, Colin Powell, and these were people who could work in a bipartisan way, whose reputation for competence was aboveboard, and I think it's time now for the president to seriously consider bringing in some new blood into the White House. He's just sort of--you know, sort of staggering along on issue after issue, and this investigation is just one of many examples of that.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Allen, you agree with that?

SEN. ALLEN: No, I don't agree with it. And Senator Schumer is a good partisan, articulate Democrat. And I don't think the president ought to be taking advice from Senator Schumer on some of these. And you can--Karl Rove, who's a very smart, sharp and very able advisor to the president--I like Karl Rove a great deal. And, of course, the Democrats would like to have Karl Rove out. Insofar as the war in Iraq... "

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9764239/

[skipos]

17. "I don't agree we should have a speedy withdrawal.

But I do think that John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and others, when they bring up a point of view, are really part of what this function in America is all about what the Congress should be doing. We really need accountability from the president."

I can respect that.

[radio4progressives]

23. I can too... Why didn't he say that on MTP???

instead of "knowing what i know now, i would vote to go to war in Iraq". ?

[...of J.Temperance]

25. Wow...not more inaccuracy and rumor-mongering?

:eyes: Is it a full moon AGAIN?

Let's just make shit up, and then when called on it, start backpeddling and make some other shit up.

I like and trust Senator Schumer, he's got a track record of being an excellant Senator. He's a fine Democrat and has done a wonderful job, in particular regarding the Right-Wing reactionary judicial picks of Junior. I'm proud that Senator Schumer is a representative of my party.

Message to Cindy Sheehan...don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. You were finished as soon as you bashed Senator Clinton.

This is called Democratic Underground...I often wonder why some people seem to most of the time take joy in only bashing members of the Democratic Party, it's very curious to me.

[radio4progressives]

28. Wow... So, let me get this straight... Support War Mongers or else ?

Wow... So when did DU become the bastion of Pro War politics?

[...of J.Temperance]

31. Democrats defending Democrats = Pro War politics!!

I don't know. Senator Schumer ISN'T Pro War...and let's face it, in light of your most recent bizarre and inaccurate thread regarding a *residential Recall election that's not permitted in the Constitution, so you suggest a Peoples Revolution instead worthy of Chairman Mao...in light of that thread which was full of all kinds of inaccuracies and mind-blowing weirdness...I'm not sure that this "revelation" regarding Senator Schumer should be treated in any way seriously.

There's many of us at Democratic Underground who are aware that there are a handful of subversives hell bent on causing division by bashing Democrats and spreading innuendo and rumors that when called on they cannot support. This seems to reach fever pitch when everything is going wrong for Bush Inc., as if it's posted to try and dampen our spirits...and it doesn't work sorry to say.

We are, by and large united and we will go forward into 2006 as ONE party, regardless of flaws, we are stronger united than divided...and we know that there are those who walk amongst us who are desperately trying to divide us by bringing up Iraq over EVERY other SINGLE issue.

Here I'll just make shit up and rumor-monger...do you know that I was told by the friend of a friend of a friend that Senator Maria Cantwell bought some Zantac 150 from Wal-Mart!! Oh my goodness...shock horror...whaddya mean, she DIDN'T picket the place? Nah, she went in and like BOUGHT the stuff.

And yes, I feel sorry that Cindy Sheehan lost her son in a pointless war. However Cindy Sheehan has now surrounded herself with some very dubious characters and they have their own agenda...and it's not an agenda that pretty much anyone in the Democratic Party supports. So I repeat, Cindy Sheehan, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Hey I know, how's about for our 2008 Presidential ticket Kucinich/Sheehan? :sarcasm:

On Edit: Moderators if my post is out of line, then please feel free to delete it and I'll fully understand.

[radio4progressives]

36. OMG..... this rant is utterly insane.

you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

[...of J.Temperance]

38. I fully expect this type of comment from your "sort"...

You just make up shit pretty much all of the time...do you really want one of us here to use the Search Function that DU donors can use...because I'm sure that we'll find a number of your threads where you've constantly made shit up and then when you've been asked to provide FACTS you've back tracked and then made more shit up.

Your thread from the other night was literally the MOST batshit crazy thread I've ever read...and I'm not the ONLY one who thinks that.

It rhymes with doll and moll...and I'm not feeding you anymore.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

I suppose this post will get deleted because I refered to batshit crazy.

[wyldwolf]

39. speaking of having our own sets of facts

...I'm curious about this "fact":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2297538&mesg_id=2298546

"Last year, Clinton said "Shut Up and Fall In Line" - that's a quote." Posted by you.

So...?

[...of J.Temperance]

46. Notice how they haven't responded to your comment

After you presented them with some more of their "facts"

*Sound of crickets chirping*

[radio4progressives]

47. No Mystery..

That is a quote from Bill Clinton that was posted during the campaign
sometime around super tuesday (or just following) and it was a huge, massive -multi thread topic of discussion during all through the campaign over at John Kerry's forum, at the time it was the only forum i was active at.

hell, even Arianna Huffington used the quote at about the same time she issued her own edict, something about when 'the house is burning, we don't talk about remodeling' (paraphrasing) we have to do what Bill Clinton says and we have to shut up and fall in line' and after we win, we fight again to make needed changes' (something to that effect).

If this quote wasn't common knowledge here on the DU when it certainly was everywhere else, i don't know what to tell ya....

It had the effect of pouring salt into open wound to everyone I engaged with.

Was/Is the Iraq War a significant issue for you, or not?

[wyldwolf]

75. 1. you've provided ZERO proof, 2. You try to change the topic

..which I funny because I just last night that that is what you do.

Surely you have a link?

[patrioticliberal]

30. He's a little pigfucker and I do not like him

[...of J.Temperance]

34. So vote for his Repuke opponent then n/t

[radio4progressives]

41. Transcript of Schumers MTP Remarks

The MTP excerpts is below, but first i felt compelled to provide the trail of source links to Senator Schumer's comments that were actually televised.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/23/1120/0595

Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 09:02:00 AM PDT
Just now on MTP he was asked by Mr. Potatohead, knowing what you know today would you still vote for the war? And he said, Yes. This is why people hate Democrats.

This is why, for the first time in my life, I gave money to someone running for Congress in another state. Paul Hackett might not be as liberal as me but he says what he believes and stands behind it. Dems like Schumer have little credibilty among those of us outside the Beltway.


Meet the Press transcript for October 23, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9764239/

Relevant excerpt: (bold emphasis mine)

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, there's been a widespread discussion that this is bigger than just Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame and White House aides; that it really goes to the core of the Iraq War, what cases were made to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and other systems and other analyses and other intelligence data. Based on what you now know today, do you regret having voted for the war?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, no, Tim, because my vote was seen and I still see it as a need to say we must fight a strong and active war on terror. But I would say this, Tim, and I would take your point in a slightly different direction. I think what we've seen in the last several months is a White House in some real degree of disarray: the war in Iraq where nobody knows what the game plan is; the budget, which is just out of control and nobody seems to have a handle on it and could wreck our economy; the prescription drug bill, the major accomplishment and everyone's confused about how it's going to be administered. The Web sites don't even work. And, of course, Katrina.
=================================

The Second Hand Remarks from Cindy Sheehan, (not fourth hand)can be heard in the video/audio link initially provided in OP but here it is again: http://www.archive.org/download/ToddSmythUDC092505UDC09...

And with this, I rest my case...

[...of J.Temperance]

44. Are you a Democrat? n/t

[radio4progressives]

48. Sure Am... ALL OF MY LIFE..

and I'm 55 years old.

[...of J.Temperance]

52. With all of the bashing of Democrats that goes on

I just thought I'd better ask and the last time I looked Cindy Sheehan wasn't a represenative of the Democratic Party. I must say that I thought you were a Green Party supporter.

You're 28 years older than I am...MrBenchley will not be happy that you're 55 years-old, because he won't be able to call you a "Teen Progressive" :)

On Edit: Changed word.

[radio4progressives]

57. Right Now, I'm a strong supporter of Senator Feingold for a Possible

Nominee.

So far, He's seems to be just the kind of Democrat that I want to see in the white house, (and in Congress for that matter, we need more people like him) He KNEW the pre-war intel was phony and bogus - and he said so out loud and often.

Also, he's the only Democratic Senator that KNEW what the Patriot Act was about, and he had the COURAGE to vote on principle, against it back in 2001.

He doesn't back peddle, doesn't speak with a handful of marbles in his mouth.

He's intelligent, articulate and a straight up, unapologetic PROGRESSIVE.

He's someone I'd be very proud to lead this party and this country, but I strongly suspect that the party front loaders will do everything in their power to keep him in line and sitting at the back of the bus. I really hope however that he manages to get his message through to the American people - because goddess only knows, the American People needs someone as honest and principle as he is to lead us out of this morass.

[...of J.Temperance]

62. Well I like Feingold too, as well as Edwards, Warner and Clark

Warner/Clark or Edwards/Warner are my top tickets. I'm not a single issue voter, I don't go in for litmus tests. Whilst I disagreed with going into Iraq, I'm not going to hold that issue over the head of our nominee, because there are a ton of equally important issues.

On the subject of Senator Schumer, he's pro-choice, he supports Medicare, he supports Social Security, he's pro-Labor Union, he's pro-Minimum Wage, he's against trillion dollar tax cuts for people who don't need them and he's against Junior's Right-Wing Reactionary Judicial nominees...so for me that far outweighs any one single issue.

Cindy Sheehan also hates Hillary Clinton, there's a pattern emerging...she's beating up on Democrats more than Republican's and the way I see it, she's aligned herself now with the Far Far Left who as we know also hate Democrats.

[radio4progressives]

72. I see....

I generally hold similar views..

on the matter of Cindy criticizing Clinton and other Dems on the Iraq war, it's not hate - it is honest criticism and that was only after meeting with her and the others on the matter.

It would be extremely hypocritical of her to have only criticized Bush & Co. and not to have taken on the pro-war Dems who have been enablers of this evil policy as well. Getting out of Iraq is her mission, and it is one that I see as vitally important, and one that i strongly support.

It isn't about hating Dems. It's about calling them on the carpet on this policy and pressuring them to take a strong clear stand against it.

It's a difference of considerable distinction..

Thank you for honestly engaging with me on this. Obviously we don't' see eye to eye on everything, but so many things we do agree on.

I understand the dispute you have with the aide quote, and I'll look into that too.

[...of J.Temperance]

77. Well

The way I see it, who actually took us into the war Bush Inc. and they're a danger to all life on this planet if not stopped. The only way to stop them, is to elect a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, this is what Cindy should be concentrating on, she needs to stop bashing...Hillary for example, who's up for re-election next year, if Hillary loses her seat, then that gives the Repukes another Senate seat, and that get's us where?

About agreeing on many things. This is what I keep trying to point out. People know I'm a Centrist Democrat, and they'll be on the Left and they'll say that they don't like Centrists...and when you give them examples of what proper Centrists believe, they always say "Well, I agree with most of that stuff too".

People need to start realizing that there's far more that unites us than divides us.

I like engaging people in an honest debate :)

[radio4progressives]

49. I was going to aks if you were a conservative...

but i'm getting tired of stating the obvious..

[...of J.Temperance]

54. I'm a Centrist Democrat...I've admitted this from the beginning

I'm socially liberal* and fiscally conservative.

*Socially liberal except with my support of the Death Penalty and my support of Second Amendment rights.

[radio4progressives]

59. ok.. I gotcha... what about the war?

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but i won't hold that against ya.. ;)

(i'm kidding!)

[...of J.Temperance]

65. I've

Said from the start, that from the beginning I was against going into Iraq, they posed no security threat and they possessed no WMDs.

I'm not a Pacifist, I do think that at times we do need to use military intervention as a last resort. I supported both the intervention in Bosnia and in Kosovo, where people, Muslims, where being ethnically cleansed by the tens of thousands, and the only thing that stopped that was military intervention.

To be honest, instead of waging military intervention against Afghanistan and Iraq...I would have suggested that we wage military intervention against Pakistan and Saudi Arabia instead, the former is harboring real terrorists and also training them, the latter is financing real terrorist organizations, and then there's the A.Q. Khan situation around Pakistan, which is an incredibly dangerous and destabilizing situatation for the entire region, if not brought under control.

The Iraq War, whilst I never supported it, it's happened, and we can't go back to prevent it, it's done. I believe that a great proportion of our Senator's were misled and shown cherry-picked intelligence. As I pointed out above, I'm not about to hold one of our Senator's IWR over their head's and demand a litmus test.

I think we need to look at the bigger picture, at the range of issues that are equally important, and in some case more important...such as the epic problem with prescription drug charges and the assault on the courts by the Right-Wing...I think that the replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court is more important than the IWR vote because Stevens' replacement is going to have repercussions for the entire country for the next thirty or forty years.

I just am a pragmatist.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

[radio4progressives]

69. I agree with you on a number of things..

a bit mixed but...

I too supported intervention in Bosnia, but i didn't support the bombings in Kosovo..

However it was hard to understand what was happening, we didn't have all the facts and the damn repukes were sidetracking the media with their ugly evil relentless smear campaign against Clinton...

so..the foreign policy under Clinton was starting to look alot like Poppy's and Reagans and it becoming something of concern to me.

In other words I agree there are times when intervention is necessary. I just want an honest accounting of those occurances and I want it limited to intervention, as opposed to geo-political global empire building etc. In this war, yes there was cherry picking going on but you and I knew that much from our own respective living rooms and TV sets.. so, we'll disagree on this point.

I too am very concerned about Justice John Paul Stevens departure from the bench - and worry about the current nominee, Alito in replacing O'Connor.

I'm holding on to hope that Feingold will be able to really effectively expose Alito - and to usher in a successful filibuster on that nominee. and I hope that will stall that process long enough to getting to robust, meaningful impeachment procedures underway..

If not, I agree we're totally screwed, imo.

The thing with this war, is that are more wars on the shelf.

That's why this one is so important, to those of us who read the tea leaves and hear the saber rattlings long before the rest of the country seems to.

The WH and Pentagon is working regime transition change in Cuba, when Castro passes.. The saber rattingling against Iran, Venezuela, China and other SA countries is almost palpable, and the propaganda is insane.

If we don't have the Congressional leadership that can honestly respond to the hard facts regarding Iraq, what in the hell can we expect from our own people regarding these other military adventures that Darth Cheney has in the works?

Do you see my concern?

[Don1]

78. Who called the op a liar and why?

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer,... Based on what you now know today, do you regret having voted for the war?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, no, Tim, because my vote was seen and I still see it as a need to say we must fight a strong and active war on terror.

Schumer is for the war and against the "handling of the war." Right or wrong?

[madfloridian]

43. I got a bad feel when I watched that video.

I felt like she was making fun of many of our Democrats who took time to meet with her. I felt like her audience was as well. I know that PDA made fun of Dean's blog about her at the DNC blog.

I thought that was outrageous.

[radio4progressives]

51. I don't see it the same way as you do...

I see true heroes taking on the establishment to end this monstrous evil war -that both parties got us into - and now BOTH parties have to get our troops home ALIVE and IN ONE PIECE.

playing nicey nicey isn't ending this war, and it never has before.

It's time to get the hell out of Iraq, it's time to end the kind of policy that uses our people as cannon fodder in pursuit of their own personal gains.

we'll just have to "agree to disagree"...

[newspeak]

45. wasn't that an argument for Vietnam?

it wasn't good for the families who lost their loved ones and it wasn't good for the working classes, but it was hell of an orgy for corporations. So, what's he smoking? Cause I want some of the good shit that makes me not care about children being blown away and soldiers dying.

[incapsulated]

50. "...and the *aide* replied that.."

"Senator Schumer thinks this war is good for America."

In other words, the entire OP is based on what his aide supposedly said, without any evidence other than second or third hand accounts.

So you bash him for some other stuff he said.

He's my Senator and god knows I've had plenty of criticism for him, but this is bullshit.

[newspeak]

53. well, sorry I'm from the Vietnam era

and today even though the neocons are bleeding insane, I don't excuse anyone if they promote this lying, murdering war. If the aide said it, then he or she should own up to it and Schumer should be reprimanding him if Schumer does not believe in it. During Vietnam there were Republicans and Democrats who fed us the war. And, because someone lies us into the war, I'm not for "oh well, now that we're there we are going to have to fix it."

[incapsulated]

61. I'm not arguing any of that

The fact is that Schumer's aide supposedly said this, not Schumer himself. And that this whole conversation was relayed second and third hand.

[radio4progressives]

55. What exactly are you disputing?

"This statement is quoted by Cindy Sheehan at a pda meeting back in early October" I trust that Cindy Sheehan isn't merely pulling it out of thin air..

[madfloridian]

56. Well, the statement she attributed to Dean sounded BS as well.

Let's just be blunt. I would just imagine he was saying that getting out of Iraq would be a very hard thing to do, that there were many considerations, and that the Democrats did not all agree on it. He might even have told her he was the chairman, and he did not have much input into the war stuff.

She made him sound ignorant and stupid, and all the people in the room laughed at it.

I don't believe Schumer would have said that, and yes, I get upset with him over things.

[radio4progressives]

58. I didn't think she made Dean sound stupid, i thought she understood

very well what the problem was, and that he's caught up inside the Beltway poltiics now ... it's the "can't see the forest from the trees" kind of thing. I just didn't see it as harshly as you obviously do.

I think she's given him a few nuggets to chew on..

[incapsulated]

60. Senator Schumer Says "Iraq War is Good for America"

This is what your op says. Later in the thread you say this is actually what one of his aides said, not him. And that Cindy repeated this.

It's dishonest and misleading. It's one thing to say "Cindy said Schumer said" and provide the detail that in fact, it was his AIDE that made the statement. But that's not what I would think just reading your OP.

[radio4progressives]

66. Ok.. I see what is at issue for you ..

The header should have read:

"Cindy Says Schumer Aide Said "Iraq War Good for America"

It's the 'he said, she said' kind of thing..

I don't make a distinction between the staffers and the officials they work for, because their job is to represent the thinking and positions that the elected official takes on a wide array of issues.

It's not as if we were talking about a transportation issue.

The Iraq War wasn't exactly an obscure policy issue.. The way I see it, it isn't as if the aide would not have known how the Senator thinks and feels about that issue, and would not have required a need to research or double check with the Senator on that.. In other words, my impression that the aide was speaking Schumers mind and representing his thinking on the matter.

I suppose you do make a point, and given the shifting winds it might have been a matter to give more attention to the possibility that he no longer holds that view..and to have made the point that Cindy was speaking with a staffer and not the Senator himself.

So are you able to illuminate us to Senator Schumer's current thinking on the matter of the War?

[incapsulated]

71. I'm not defending Schumer on the war

As far as I'm concerned, his position is "in the muddle", he wants to defend his IWR vote and criticise Bush on the war at the same time:

The chairman of the Senate Democratic campaign committee, Charles E. Schumer of New York, said, "There is no question that the Iraq war, without any light at the end of the tunnel apparent to the American people, is becoming more and more a ball and chain rapidly weighing down the administration."

Mr. Schumer, reflecting continued Democratic nervousness at being portrayed as being disrespectful of troops, added, "I have been more supportive of the president's war on terror than many Democrats."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/politics/18repubs.html?ex=1135918800&en=256e55fa6af47cc2&ei=5070

However, I don't think it's fair quote an aide, word for word, and ascribe it to him, directly, especially since it's second hand.

I doubt very much Schumer wants to be quoted as saying: "I think the Iraq war is good for America". It's a loony statement even for a republican to make. The aide, if they said this (I wasn't there and there is no record) should be fired, imo. Or he should do a Kerry and retract. But I doubt he is even aware it's being repeated.

[radio4progressives]

73. Fair Point... I understand the objection...

It's a very fair point, I intend to look into this for at least an update, if not a quoted clarification from either Sheehan, or Schumer or any of the staffers.. if it's not too provocative, i'll post it.

In the meantime, I'll take the critisim to heart with regard to making a more clear distinction on the source being quoted - a difference with a distinction that i had not considered before, even though it was from the same office - it might have been a young punk who didn't know better!

so, i'll check into it..

[incapsulated]

74. No prob.

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

80. If the aide said it, we can assume it reflected Schumer's views

Like any other politician, Schumer would not hire aides who didn't understand his positions and couldn't accurately state them.

The question of whether Schumer or the aide said the war was good for America is, in the end, hairsplitting.

Also, let me say that I am a Democrat. I am loyal to the party. I am also loyal to my own convictions and will fight for them no matter what, even when the party opposes them. Anyone who does otherwise is being untrue to him or herself.

[applegrove]

70. It is good for the stock market. The "government spending" is outside

the country keeping inflation (the enemy of the stock-market) down. If all those billions went to education then there would be more inflation. And the rich would have to go through bad times like they used to in the 1990s.