Follow the Soapbox


Cindy Sheehan -- Peace Advocate, Author, Editor in Chief, Radio Talk Show Host and Producer of “Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox Radio Show

Cindy Sheehan

I swear, this Empire is going completely FUBAR: continuing wars; expanding police state; Nobel Peace Prize for a burgeoning POTUS war criminal; compromised environment; droughts; floods; earthquakes and tornadoes.

This article will be fairly popular among the faux-gressive set because I will be primarily “bashing” George Bush. By the time George Bush left office, my act of minority courage in criticizing Bush became a national (socially acceptable) pastime. It hasn’t been so criticizing Obama from the far left—righties assume I love him and Democrats think I am a “teabagger.” Actually, the only thing I have been since my son was killed in Iraq is a principled antiwar activist.

Anyway, a fresh assault on sanity in this FUBAR country will occur on Thursday, June 18th in New York City when George W. Bush will receive the “Father of the Year” award from the National Council on Father’s Day.

This is such astounding news, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Let’s start with George’s record on being a father.

Besides fake photo ops that all first families engage in (Look, Jackie’s smiling and looking happy when she knows Jack’s a major philanderer), there were many reports of George’s twin daughters partying their ways though life like their mom and dad did before politics entered the equation. Kids party, right? However, most young adults don’t have a father who is sending other children off to kill other children or die in the process like the Bush girls do.

Many young men (of all nationalities) like my son Casey will never be fathers, or their children are orphans, because of the policies George inflicted on the planet when he was president. George managed to keep his twin daughters breathing while he murdered countless other people’s children. This is a good basis for an award?

What about the fathers of those murdered by George while in office? How do they feel about this disgusting piece of cow dung being honored while their children are not even here to send them a card or give them a call?

Another FUBAR aspect of this award is the list of “honorees” that George joins—many of the infamous fathers that the notification about the Father of the Year award mentions are all major war criminals like him: Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan (whose children reportedly hated him), Colin Powell, Douglas MacArthur, and Norman Schwarzkopf. Seriously—is one of the requirements to receive this award the murder of millions?

Finally, the National Council on Father’s Day is a “charitable” organization which support the American Diabetes Association, and I kid you not: Save the Children.

George Bush (and his entire regime) needs to be in prison for the remainder of his life for war crimes and crimes against humanity and it seems like hundreds of thousands of children needed to be saved from him.

Awarding such an honor to a murdering sociopath like George W. Bush is as beyond comprehension as Obama giving H.W. the presidential medal of freedom. These awards, like the Nobel Peace Prize are obviously used to support the vast crimes of
the 1%.

The National Council of Fathers apparently is staffed by complete morons who would not know a good father if they were kicked in the ass by one—and I hope they are, soon.

Pictures: Dede, Cindy and fellow Gold Star Mom Amy Branham before our first trip to Crawford. 8/6/05

Dear Friend,

It is with great concern but with hope that I write to you to let you know that my sister/best-friend/peace colleague, Dede Miller has recently been diagnosed with Stage 3, very aggressive and rare breast cancer.

For a few months, she (and by extension as her primary support person, I) has been struggling with the monolithic bureaucracy of LA County "health" care. I have traveled from my home several times to LA to be with her. I can't see how a person can go through what Dede has had to go through alone.

Dede has been by my side forever, not just since Casey was killed in Iraq. Dede, being a single person without children has been like a second mom to my kids and now the beloved Auntie to my five grandkids (she gets all the fun). However, since Casey has died she has been with me--getting arrested for peace; organizing Camp Casey and all of the other harebrained schemes I have come up with; campaign staff; and now my only co-worker in Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox and The Soapbox People's Network. 

Back in 2005, Dede decided to leave corporate America to help me work for peace and now is finding it difficult (if not impossible) to survive with breast cancer AND fighting for her life to access basic services like medical care and disability (she doesn't qualify). Besides working for peace, we have been on the frontlines working for economic equality and social justice, and when we need it, it's not available. 

Our family is working together to try and get Dede all the advantages she needs to heal herself from this terrible disease. We appreciate all of the well-wishes and healing thoughts, but we really don't need any more alternative therapy advice, we are exploring ALL options and know about these options.

What we do need (besides your healing energy) are donations to give Dede this fighting chance to beat this awful (yet tragically) prevalent disease.

One of our good friends, Jolie Diane, has set up this GOFUNDME page for Dede--please give what you can and/or share this campaign. 

It's our most important campaign to date. Dede has been fighting for you full time, now please give her a fighting chance to continue in the struggle.






“Venezuela isn’t a threat to the US and the US is not a threat to Venezuela.” — U.S.President Barack Obama

Obama made that statement on the eve of the recent Summit of the Americas convened in Panama City,
Panama. The statement came out of the Emperor’s mouth just one short month after he signed Executive Order (EO) 13692 declaring that Venezuela was “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” Now, I know it’s rare for any President of the USA (POTUS) to tell the truth about anything, but in the statement above, Obama did state a half-truth.

In this piece, I will demonstrate that Venezuela is NOT a threat to the US, and not a threat at all; HOWEVER, the US is not only a major threat to the sovereignty of Venezuela, but also to the planet at large.

Before Hugo Chávez became president of Venezuela in 1999, it was indeed a client state of the US and the country’s elite lived in luxury while most of the rest of Venezuelans lived in very poor conditions.

Since 1999, the people of Venezuela re-wrote the constitution and created the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (after Simon Bolivar who tried desperately to unite Central and South America), the nations and their citizens of Latin America have experienced (mostly) a sense of empowerment that comes with the sense that their societies care about them and that they matter and their voices can be heard by governments.

How did this change come about from the election of one man, Hugo Chávez? Well, he electrified the poor and disenfranchised in Venezuela by enshrining human rights as law and then setting about to make sure the will of the people was fulfilled.

The citizens of Venezuela have seen a decrease in poverty and an increase in their health and education. But there is a subset of Venezuelans who still do not like this empowerment: the elite, or the “oil”-garchy as I call the elite in Venezuela. Chávez once famously called them the “ los escaulídos” or “squalid ones.”

(As a side note, isn’t that a great way of naming and shaming the “elite?” Instead of “elite” which connotes some kind of elevation of some over others, to say, instead, “the squalid ones?” Those that waste resources and spread their squalor over the planet like a fungus: I like it.)

Since Chávez was elected, many of “los escualídos” have worked overtime with the CIA and other US government entities and NGOs to overthrow the Bolivarian Revolution: So far it hasn’t worked, but not because the US hasn’t tried.

Once, in 2011, I was on a plane heading to Caracas and, next to me in the row, there were two people from Venezuela. With my limited Spanish, and their limited English, I found out that they owned a hotel at a resort in Venezuela and they had gone to Salt Lake City, UT
to go shopping. (Shopping in Utah?) Anyway, I had my computer with me and I showed the woman a picture of me with their president (who was still alive). For some reason, she thought it was Chávez and Lady Di at first, but after I convinced her it was actually I, she said, “You like him?”

“I like him a lot,” I replied.

“He has been very good for the poor,” she admitted.

I think it’s pretty well established that the Bolivarian Revolution helped the poor of Venezuela, but how did it help Latin America in general?

In 2010, I was given permission to travel to Venezuela to interview President Chávez for what eventually became my book: Revolution, A Love Story. During that trip, I was invited to travel to Uruguay with President Chávez in his version of Air Force One to attend the inauguration of leftist President Felipé Mujica.

First of all, Chávez made other Latin American leaders like Evo Morales possible (but Chávez was only possible because of the Cuban Revolution, in my opinion), but it also inspired the other desperately poor people in Central and South America.

Here in the Evil Empire, to even be in the same zip code as a US President, one has to go through many levels of security, but in Montevideo, I witnessed Chávez confidently stride into a crowd of cheering Uruguayans to shake hands and speak with them. No one had gone through any screening, but when a person is generally loved and admired, that’s not so much of a problem.

Author/Activist Eva Golinger documented from Freedom Of Information (FOIA) requests that the US was a profound part of the attempted coup against Chávez in 2001 and since then Golinger claims that the US has spent 100 billion dollars trying to destabilize the Revolution.

Also, during the Bush years, the Empire maintained nine military bases in neighboring Colombia, ostensibly to fight the “drug war” (the CIA is in the global drug trade business), but to also further isolate Venezuela just as the Empire is now doing in Ukraine to isolate Russia, for example.

When it comes to foreign policy, Chávez and current President Maduro have taken the route of spreading goodwill among Venezuela’s neighbors. Cuba receives oil and beef (in exchange for doctors and teachers) and poor people in the US receive subsidized or free heating oil, for example.

It seems like the only thing the US exports are bombs and troops.

It was indeed a sad day for the world when Hugo Chávez passed away in 2013, and many people asked me if the Bolivarian Revolution would die with Hugo Chávez. My answer was and is, “I have been there, I have witnessed the advances in Venezuela and the political engagement and empowerment of the citizenry, and I can’t believe that they would want to return to the days when the gap between the rich and the poor was so great.”

With the new president Nicolas Maduro, I have seen that the US government is still supporting the former coup traitors but I also see the people of Venezuela courageously fighting to retain the legacy of Chávez, in his name. Is the Bolivarian Revolution perfect? Far from it because true Socialism puts control of work places and the government totally in the hands of the people. But with the Community Councils and social benefits, Venezuela far surpasses the so-called wealthiest nation on earth.

My response to right-wingers (like Obama) when they say that Venezuela is a “threat” to the US, is to ask a series of questions:

Q: “In how many countries does Venezuela currently maintain military bases and occupying forces?”

A: One: Venezuela

Q: “In how many countries does the US currently maintain military bases and occupying forces?”

A: Hard to pin down with “classified” sites, but around 150 out of a total of 195 countries.

Q: “How much money (percentage of GDP) does Venezuela spend on its military?

A: 1.2% [about $5.3 billion]

Q: “How much money (percentage of GDP) does the US spend on its military?

A: 3.7% [about $620.4 billion]
So, this is my question to Barack Obama: “What nation is THE threat to global peace?”

Heck, with the police state crackdown here in the USA, it is not the Venezuelan government and people but the armed force of the US imperialist state apparatus (the police, national guard, etc.), representing the U.S. ruling class, that is an actual threat even to the citizens of the USA!

PictureCasey Sheehan
by Cindy Sheehan

Since my son Casey was killed in another illegal and immoral US war for profit based on lies, much has changed in my life.

The best change that has really brought good to my life is that I have become a grandmother five times over! I now have three grandsons and two granddaughters. Their births and lives have not been able to make up for the fact that they will never know their Uncle Casey, but I see a little of him in each one and they all know about him.

The ability to understand the depth of the tragedy our family experienced before the grandbabies were born varies with each child and their age to understand.

Jonah, the oldest is now seven and he knows that Uncle Casey was killed in war and he knows that war is “stupid” and he worries for a schoolmate who (in first grade) is already talking about joining the Army. We talk about how blind obedience to authority and unconditional love of the “red, white, and blue” needs to be questioned. He gets it and I am happy to bring my global struggle for peace with justice to this microcosm of my wonderful young family.

The second grandbaby Jovie is five and she is the one who thinks about the spiritual applications of Uncle Casey’s passing the most. One of her schoolmates (in pre-Kindergarten) tried to tell her that “heaven” was “up in the clouds,” but Jovie set her straight: “I told her that I know exactly where heaven is, it’s next to Burger City (local restaurant) where Uncle Casey lives.”  She sometimes cries because she misses an uncle she never knew, because her living uncles are so much a positive part of her life.

Cohen (my son’s, son—the J-babies belong to my daughter) has a very special relationship with Uncle Casey because his dad is the one who keeps Casey’s memory alive by visual aids like photos and mementos of Casey’s life. Cohen is also a clone of Casey because he is a clone of his dad who looks more like Casey every year that passes. Andy who is now seven years older than Casey was when he was killed is my living model of how Casey (who should be celebrating his 36th birthday on May 29th) would have looked if he were allowed to live and age.

The three-year old Jackson keeps telling me that Uncle Casey will “be to life” again and that he was “eaten by monsters.” Jackson is close to the truth on that one. What is more monstrous than stealing a loved one from the warmth and love of his family and plunking him down in an evil occupation of another country to perpetuate an Imperial agenda of violent domination?

Jilly is only five-months old, but her sweet nature reminds me so much of Casey as a baby and she takes her thumb and gives everything the “thumb-hole” treatment just like Casey used to.

Jovie will come to the cemetery (which we call “Casey’s Park) with me and she not only helps me put flowers on Casey’s “Memory” (that’s what she calls “Memorials"), but she goes around and straightens flowers on other “Memories” and makes sure the baby section is taken care of. I can’t really express how her company for these occasions helps me heal from the trauma of Casey’s murder. As someone who is no longer religious, it just confirms the cycle of life for me; and our more than human need to give relevant and positive meanings to our short (and Casey’s way too short) existence.

We live in the present with an eye to a future of peace, but even my grandchildren share in the memories of their uncle who is our hero, not because he died “to keep America safe,” but because he lived a life of honor and love that is worthy to emulate.


Take this Survey and SHOVE IT!
I ain’t votin’ for you no more!
Cindy Sheehan

In 2007, to much hoopla and derision from what passes for the left in the USA, I publicly exited (Stage Far Left) the Democratic Party. So, imagine my surprise today when I got a letter from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) asking me “as a party leader” to participate in the Official 2015 Democratic Party Survey. I even have a “DNC MEMBERSHIP” number for cripessake!

When I say that I “left the party” in 2007, I did not leave as a party apparatchik, or anything approaching a “party leader.” At best, I had been a loyal Dem voter for the majority of my life, but I had never belonged to the DNC nor had I even ever contributed to any political campaign.

Before I get into the fluff of the survey (which has nothing about foreign policy/war/torture/CIA, because there is nothing there to distinguish the Dems from the Tea Party), for full disclosure, I have always loathed the GOP (I remember crying when Reagan won). However, when the GOP commits crimes, my thought is, “It is the Republicans, what else can we expect?” In 2007, I left the Democratic Party because it broke my heart and I stand on my principles and against the DNC to this very day.  At the time I publicly left, of course, the DNC was only being the DNC, and like any venomous snake, it will bite you to insert its poison. Good thing I jumped out in 2007 before it could do any more damage to me. Even though the difference between the DNC and GOP is negligible when it comes to war, when it comes to domestic policy, the differences seem to be purely rhetorical.

Now on to the fluff of the survey: My first instinct was to say “meat,” but there is no meat in the survey (fundraising scam).

The fundraising scam’s questions are set up in a way to be entirely vague and exploitative at the same time. These questions are professionally designed to inflame a visceral response to the Blue Choir and the chair of the DNC Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Israel) knows that the base of the DNC not only cares about these issues, but wholly blames the Republicans just as they are supposed to. 

We “party leaders” (shouldn’t one actually be registered in the party to be a “leader?) aren’t given any space to add our thoughts or concerns except for three tiny lines on the back.

The punch line to the entire survey is that I am not even an “official” “party leader” until I: “Complete Your DNC Contribution Form” and send a minimum of $25.

I am going to mail the survey back in the “enclosed postage paid envelope” with a copy of this article attached and without one thin dime. The DNC is lucky that I don't sue it for damages. I may tell them to go ahead and put this Fundraising Scam where the sun don’t shine, though.

Here are the questions and my responses:

1.   Do you agree with the President’s plan to take executive action on issues that Republicans refuse to bring to a vote, like, immigration action?

I am wondering what “executive action” Obama would take on “immigration?”  According to Pulitzer Prize Winning website PolitiFactCheck:

According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents. (Louis Jacobson August 10, 2012)

The inconvenient truth, though, is that Obama is even worse than Republicans on immigration. However, when it comes to taking “executive action” I opposed it when Bush did it and I still oppose it. The US is supposed to have a system of checks and balances and “executive actions” smack of treasonous behavior and illegal usurpation of power.

2.   Do you support the President’s plan to increase the minimum wage for American’s workers?

No, I am fundamentally against a minimum wage and $10.10/hr is so far below a living wage with dignity that it will keep millions of “American” workers and their families in poverty or barely scraping by. For example, according to a living wage in my county in California (Solano) is estimated to be $12.24/hour; in San Francisco County it’s $15.66/hour (according to Insight). This is the bare minimum wage for one adult and I doubt much dignity is conferred on a person who makes such low wages. Obama's "minimum wage" leaves a huge monthly gap and that's why I support a living wage based on many factors, including cost of living and cost of really living. 

Also, if the US had a comprehensive single-payer healthcare system, then healthcare costs would be removed from the equation and people would have a more comfortable standard of living.

3.   Do you support the President’s plan to make it possible for more American workers to earn sick days and family leave?

Sick days and family leave should be mandatory and natural for EVERY worker on this planet. And, hey, while we are at it how about paid vacations? In my observation, most work these days is “casual” or “contracted” and I know very few people who actually have paid sick days or paid vacation. 

In many “first” world countries, mothers get many months to several years of full or almost full pay when they have children. Here? Six weeks at low pay, if the mom is lucky. In a nation that bombs countries to spread its values, family sure seems like a low-priority to it. Six weeks? A woman who just gave birth has most likely not even stopped bleeding by then. I feel like all of Obama’s "grand" plans are just more stale bread crumbs to keep the flock from rebelling.

Also, when we are asked about "American" workers only, does that absolve the profiteers from paying even a low minimum wage of $10.10/hour (proposed) to their workers in other countries who are making their crappy products to be sold here in the US at Walmart? It's a rhetorical question, the answer is "yes." Also, how does fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership figure into this? I believe it has been shown that the TPP will have a negative affect on all workers.

4. Do you support President Obama’s plans to close the wage gap and make it possible for women to receive equal pay?

The only wages this would affect would be people who contract with the Federal Government. How about an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution that would finally mention women as equal to men? I don’t have faith in the Constitution or the ability of the elite to adhere to it, but for over two centuries ½ of the people in this country have been excluded.

5.   Do you support his plan to close other tax loopholes and to simplify the tax code so that corporations and the ultra-wealthy will pay their fair share?

Does the DNC mean the “ultra-rich” like a large majority of Congress? If “fair share” means enough of a tax to make the “ultra—rich” like the 99% rest of us (so we could be the 100%), then, yeah, I’d support it. If closing loopholes on Corporations means that all of the money that has been stolen from us via low wages, high prices, and government largess is returned to the public commons, then I’d say, “hell, yes!” However, as the health insurance companies wrote the “Affordable” Care Act, I am sure the ultra-rich corporations would write the new tax code with built-in new and improved loopholes.

6.   President Obama presented a plan that will allow American workers to gain the modern job skills necessary to compete in the global economy. Do you support these efforts?

I am not even sure what this means, but it sounds like something I should support and immediately send a minimum of $25 to insure the Democratic agenda moves forward.

7.   Do you support President Obama’s plan to reduce carbon pollution, accelerate the development of clean energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and invest in sustainable and resilient infrastructure projects to prepare for the effects of climate change?

While the global oil cartels run US foreign policy, bombing and devastating oil rich countries, approving more offshore drilling leases, increasing nuclear power, increasing hydro-fracturing, letting Monsanto poison our water as well as our food, letting BP get away with ecocide in the Gulf of Mexico, letting big water steal our water and then charge us for it, allowing US corporations to operate in other countries without even the bare minimum of ecological protection?

I don’t support green Capitalism. Energy and energy production belongs in the hands of the workers and communities.

8.   The President has proposed a plan to provide a community college education to any American who is willing to work for it. Do you support this initiative?

Hell, no! Education is a human right and higher education should be free, high quality and accessible to EVERY PERSON that wants to use it. Paid job training, apprenticeship programs, internships, and certificate programs should be free for those who choose that path. Our young people already work their asses off to go to school only to get into lifelong, unrelenting debt. I would support a plan to forgive student debt (but Obama’s buddies at the banks wouldn’t like that) and make all education free. Most countries do this and here in California we did it until profit and privatization became the overwhelming goal of the parasites at the top.

Those are the questions. There is one odd part that asks me to choose three Republicans from a list of ten that may be the likely Republican nominee in 2016. I checked: Other: Hillary Clinton. I evaluated Clinton and she has all the desirable qualities of a Republican candidate for president. However, I am sure all of the evil clowns at the DNC will get behind her rightwing agenda, too.

In the tiny three-line space for any other comments I would like to make to the President or DNC, I wrote in all caps (in black ink as instructed. We are all conditioned well in this fill-in-the-bubble world):


by Cindy Sheehan

Hi, I am going to try and write this piece with as little vitriol as I can muster, but war criminals and their voracious appetites for grabbing as much power as they can by any corrupt or violent means really anger me.

I am speaking of the recent news item that Hillary Clinton will announce her candidacy for POTUS (President of the United States) on Sunday, April 12. First of all, no one should be surprised, and secondly, all liberal-progressives should (but most won’t) vigorously oppose this person.

Hillary Clinton is proof in living color that for one to rise to the top of the Imperial dung-heap in the WaMPO (White Male Property Owner) dominated paradigm, she, or he person-of-color, MUST fully conform and be fully invested in that dominant paradigm.

For example, during the run up to the invasion of Iraq, Clinton joined her Secretary of State predecessor (female and person of color) Condoleezza Rice and other neocons in ramming the false propaganda of Saddam/Osama and WMD down the throats of a too frightened, gullible and revenge-seeking US population. While Secretary of State, Clinton never met an invasion or overthrow of any government (i,e:, Honduras, Libya) that she didn’t absolutely adore.

Clinton’s most recent abomination is the appointment of an ex-Monsanto corporate lackey attorney Jerry Crawford to her cadre of campaign minions. Besides representing one of the most EVIL corporations on the planet: Monsanto, Crawford has long been a political functionary for the most conservative Democrats and Republicans in the "crucial" state of Iowa.

There’s a list of H. Clinton’s un-accomplishments that is long enough to choke an elephant or certainly, a donkey, but the worst problem is that the very people that should be opposing a Clinton candidacy because of all of her participation in war crimes and corporate capitulations will support her and look the other way because, god forbid, a Republican with the exact same mega-faults as Clinton may be elected.

So, many people will say, “Cindy, you always whine about the problems, but don’t offer any solutions.” Of course, I have offered many solutions and opportunities to be involved in a revolutionary movement that looks beyond Federal electoral politricks, but the faux-gressives look the other way about those inconvenient facts, too.

However, here are just a few more productive activities that one can be engaged in besides voting for Clinton or her doppelganger on the “R” side:

1)  Grow an organic garden
2)  Participate in anti-police state violence activities
3)  Support an orphanage in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc
4)  Engage in independent media production or support
5)  Work on local campaigns for good people or initiatives
6)  Read a good book
7)  Volunteer at a homeless shelter/food bank
8)  Take a walk
9)  Support organizations that are truly a-partisan (Like Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox)
10)  Literally, millions of other things that are far more productive than putting your hope in this capitalist dope. 

by Cindy Sheehan

Dear Friends, With the deplorable performance of Hillary at the debate, the other evening, I decided to post an article that appeared in The Progressive Magazine earlier this year. Cindy  

Let’s face it: In 2008, we are not going to get much worse than George W. Bush. I shudder to even think of what a President worse than George would look like.   I am hoping with 2008, though, that the American electorate will not settle for someone who is not as bad as George W., but we will seek out, support and celebrate someone who is far better and will lead our country back on a path of healing and peace in a way that will also show the rest of the planet that the United States is regaining her sanity after the horribly destructive Bush years.   

I am praying that we are finished with politicians who either don’t listen to the American public at all, or like Hillary Clinton, play political games while our troops are  dying by the dozens every week. 

It’s hard to figure out which Hillary will appear on a given day. In a voice that alternates between nails on a chalkboard and the charm, warmth, and modulation of a dripping faucet, Hillary changes her rhetoric and her positions as fast as her advisers can send her a message on her Blackberry. (A recent disturbing trend she has been exhibiting is laughing wildly and inappropriately at weird random's truly creepy).  

One of the reasons that I’m opposed to a Hillary Clinton Presidency is that another Clinton in the White House would mean that for the last twenty years we have had either a Clinton or a Bush in power. America does not do dynasties. We broke away from a monarchy 231 years ago, and we have engaged in imperialism all over the world allegedly deposing dynasties. Even though the monograms are already in place, it sets a dangerous precedent, especially with another Bush in the offing.   

Everyone who knows me, though, understands the main reason I do not, have not, or will not support Hillary Clinton. It is not because she is annoying. It is not because she is a Clinton. It is because she is a She-Bush warmonger. She can twang all she wants that she has always been against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, (as she did on a recent MSNBC Countdown with Keith Olbermann) but anyone with a memory and a basic awareness of current events knows she is not exactly telling the truth. She said this on the floor of the Senate before she cast her original vote: “The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. . . . Saddam must disarm or be disarmed.”  

I want Senator Clinton to show remorse for her complicity in the murder of my son, Casey, and his buddies, and for the mass murder of the Iraqi people. Even though saying, “I’m sorry for my vote that caused so much pain,” will not raise anyone from the dead, or rebuild the smashed structures and infrastructure in Iraq, it may go a long way toward healing and also toward bringing the rest of the troops home so they can live a long life on top of the earth, not prematurely buried beneath it.  

But Hillary refuses, even at this late, to apologize. “Mrs. Clinton believes that reversing course on Iraq would invite the charge of flip-flopping that damaged Mr. Kerry,” The New York Times reported on February 18. “She argued to associates in private discussions that Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry lost, in part, because they could not convince enough Americans that they were resolute on national security, the associates said. Mrs. Clinton’s image as a strong leader, in turn, is critical to her hopes of becoming the nation’s first female President. According to one adviser, her internal polling indicates that a high proportion of Democrats see her as strong and tough, both assets particularly for a female candidate who is seeking to become commander in chief.” 

Still, she tries to have it both ways, saying that if she becomes President in 2009 she will “bring the troops home from Iraq” if they are still there. My answer to that is: Come in off of the fundraising track and work on bringing the troops home now. While the Senator is out campaigning and equivocating, people are dying.  

I, my sister, Dede, and another Gold Star Mother, Lynn Braddach, whose son, Travis Nall, was killed in Iraq in 2003, met with Senator Clinton in September of 2005. We poured our hearts and souls out to her. We cried as we told her of our sons and our fear for the people of Iraq and the escalating body count of our brave young people. She sat there stone-faced and walked out and told Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice, “My bottom line is that I don’t want their sons to die in vain. . . . I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal. . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.” She may as well have slapped us in the face using Bloody George’s own lines and using our son’s sacrifice to justify her own warmongering.  

Since we met with her, more than 1,000 of our young people have come home in body bags and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died while she was waiting for the best political time to be semi-against the war. How many of our troops are lying in Walter Reed with devastating injuries that could have been prevented if a Senate leader like Clinton would have taken a moral, instead of a political, stance?  

On January 18th, Senator Clinton introduced a meaningless bill to put a cap on the number of soldiers that can be in Iraq. She set the cap at January 1st levels. It is as weak and meaningless as the nonbinding resolution, and it is just as politically safe, since about two-thirds of the country now opposes the war—and Bloody George, too.

This occupation of Iraq can’t be won by being smarter; it was lost before we went in. The United States was the big loser in a capricious military expedition that began with the support of Senator Clinton. She is an amazingly brilliant person, and she cannot credibly say that she was fooled, or lied to, by George. But that is what she said, as she began to backpedal as early as October 17, 2003.  

“The Administration gilded the lily, engaged in hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and blew it up into a mountain,” she said on the Senate floor that day.  

I don’t want a President who admits to being fooled by George Bush, one of the biggest fools in American history.  

Now, as Bush threatens war with Iran, Senator Clinton is in no position to hold him back. In fact, she out-hawks George W. on the imminent invasion of Iran. Early last year, she had this to say to a meeting of AIPAC (American-Israeli Political Action Committee): “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” she said. “In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table.”   

To avoid letting Iran get a nuclear weapon, she is willing to go nuclear. She dares to threaten using a weapon of mass destruction, which has only ever been used by the U.S., to pick the mote out of Iran’s eye when Israel has hundreds of logs in its own eye, and America has thousands.   

I want a President who keeps us safe. But I crave a President who keeps us safe not by killing innocent people, or embarking on an insane arms race to add weaponry to our already formidable arsenal, but by implementing wise policies that give fewer people abroad any good reason to despise us. I crave a President who does not aspire to run the empire just like the guys but who understands the need to dismantle the empire and to turn this country into a real democracy, instead.   

I, again, affirm my commitment to peace. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman; Democrat, Republican, Green; white, brown, or black; Christian, Jew, Muslim, or otherwise. I will only support a candidate who is courageously and uncompromisingly committed to peace. Hillary Clinton is not that person. She never will be.

For more information about #A14, please go to: