Cindy Sheehan article

This isn't Bush's war, it is our country's war. We accepted it and joined in its creation. To say now that it is only Bush's war is untrue and silly. You seem to want a Democratic version of the U.S., but in both of the past two Presidential elections we have clearly chosen a Republican path. Again I ask can't you see and accept that America chose Bush? I wasn't in any way a fan of Clinton but I gave him the respect due and didn't say hateful things about him. I think Democrats owe Bush the same. I don't think it is unfair to consider those unable to so idealogues

 

Unfortunately Cindy Sheehan has become a tool of the far left and any sympathy for a grieving mother is diminished.

She denigrates her son's service to his country.

I wonder had Ms. Sheehan's son been killed in Bosnia if she would have been so vehemently anti-Clinton.

 

Not when it was sold based on lies. Sorry, not silly. We accepted it? I did not. I protested it publicly and privately. Bush had his own agenda which he was not willing to share with the American people (or Congress for that matter) at the outset. That makes it very much his war - though he still tries to sell it as "our" war. If we're patriotic, we must support the war.

I support our troops fully. I support them in the effort to bring them home ASAP.

Bush continues to try and define what it means to be an American. We must accept his war on terrorism. Meanwhile, he was not able to provide for the people affected by Katrina. Of course, I'm sure he'd be fully supportive if all the displaced youth from that disaster would join the army to bolster flagging enrollment.

Bush's admin. continues to cut benefits for maimed GI's, and has banned any coverage of the dead coming home in caskets. He's all talk, and talk is cheap.

You're right, America voted Bush into office - twice. The numbers don't lie. What do you make of his sinking approval numbers? Do those numbers have any legitimacy? Bush's "pact" with the people isn't a snapshot that existed on two election nights. It's ongoing each and every day. He has violated the trust of the American people. This country is now more divided than at any time in recent memory. This is true - by definition! There can be no quarrel with that. So what do you make of that? Is he a uniter or a divider? He's a divider - again, by definition.

Sad.

 

No, she honors it. She uses his death to tell the truth. There's no greater honor than that. The right is scared of her, because she has fueled a movement. Nothing scares the right more than people getting together and talking.

 

How do you honor a dead son by denigrating his service? He made the decision to join the military. When one makes that decision, one knows full well the dangers involved.

If Bush lied, then most of the civilized world lied. They all had the same intelligence and agreed Saddam was a threat and had WMD's, even Clinton and Kerry.

Tom, do you want Saddam back in power? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" answer.

 

Excellent points Tom!


Abner

 

You hit the nail right on the head. Dubya has dug himself in a hole, and is steadily finding it difficult to get out.


Have a good weekend everybody!


Abner

 

I am sorry but no one is scared. That is simply a left-wing wish like Kerry winning the election. The right is merely shaking their heads at the sad spectacle Cindy has made of herself and the disservice she does to her son who volunteered both for the service and mission he died on. If Cindy was anywhere near being right she would have the support of both her husband and family.

 

An assumption of your argument is also your conclusion. You assume she denigrated her son's service, so she denigrated her son's service. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan sees it differently than you do. Perhaps she knows her son better than we do, and she thinks that had he known what she knows (what many of us know), that he would have felt as she does.

His service has not been denigrated one iota. His service was damned honorable. What Cindy Sheehan is denigrating is Bush. This is a difference that the conservatives can't seem to comprehend. Actually, they do comprehend it, but it's an argument that they can't win, so they keep turning it into an honor question. They don't seem to realize that the best way to honor our troops is to tell them and the rest of the people the truth, and to only put them in harm's way as a last last last resort. That is how you honor troops. That is how you honor life - not with pro war lip service.

Most of the civilized world did not lie. Most of the civilized world had no voice whatsoever. This war was essentially decided by a couple of hundred people in Washington and London.

Our war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Given a choice of having Saddam back in power and no war in Iraq, and fighting a legitimate war on terror - yes, I'll take Saddam back in power and the U.S. fighting terror where it lives.

The right has conveniently forgotten about the search for Osama. You remember him, don't you? They have co-opted Bush's distortion that "well, Saddam was a bad guy; it's good he's not in power anymore. Right? So does it really matter that we lied?" That is the height of dishonor - to just kind of, well, change the rules as we go along, and, well, we'll find a good reason for all these deaths - both civilian and military. Does it really matter, as long as we took out a bad guy? C'mon, be a a good sport - will ya?

Jimmy, let me ask you a simple yes or no answer. After 9-11, did you immediately think we needed to go to war with Iraq? And given that the evidence shows that Bush-Cheney et al. were looking for a reason, any reason, to invade Iraq, do you still think that the beginnings were oh so honorable?

You see, we come from two different necks of the woods. Perhaps where you are, there was wholesale support for the war from time zero. Here we've been protesting and speaking out about it from time zero. So I don't buy the argument that all the American people went along with this thing, and that we all supported it. There were half a million people protesting in SF as the war was beginning. Public outcry around here is a solid majority against Bush and his policies. This is supported by both election results, and any casual poll of letters to the editor on Sunday morning. Despite shrill efforts from the right, we are not a bunch of "wack jobs" divorced from reality.

The SF Bay Area is a major driver of this economy, and a major supplier of this country's creative and academic resources. This area also sends its share of men and women into the military, and we have our share of military bases as well. A hundred miles to the east and south, is the most fertile farmland in the country, and a major source of the fruits and vegetables on your dinner table. So try as the Right might, we can't be marginalized.

Of course, around here, it's the conservative movement that is laughed at as out of touch. Open those orbs, man, and look around. Tell me what you see?

 

Around here, this is called "whistling through the graveyard."

 

Once again,

If Cindy was honoring her son she would have support of her husband and family. It isn't there. You may have opposed the war from the start but as a country we did no such thing. It was supported by an extremely large percent. To now suggest that wasn't so is rewriting history.

 

Re: She's an idiot jerk!

Another important thing she doesn't seem to recall is that her son was not drafted by anyone, the U.S. military is all-volunteer. It is a tragedy that she lost her son though, and her statements of late sound staged as if fed to her by handlers. The lack of support from her other family members is also very telling. She should consider getting away from any handlers who may be using her personal tragedy to their own ends, and instead seek grief counseling for herself.

I agree with your assessment of the looney wing of the left. They're idiotic extremists without an ounce of realism.
It's fine to be open-minded but if someone is so open-minded their brains are falling out then that's a problem. A terrorist would kill any ultra-leftist just as soon as kill a right winger. The same problem exists with the extreme wing of the right though, opposite issues but the same lack of realistic thinking.

I noticed you put "do without oil" in quotes. Did Cindy Sheehan actually say that? If so I would ask her if she is currently using planes or cars to get to her many public appearances.


Kit

 

We live in the era of revisionist history, Dave.

 

Ah, so you're saying that the father's opinion carries more weight than the mother's? Isn't it possible for them to have different opinions on the matter? Perhaps she thinks she's honoring her son, and the father doesn't. Is one necessarily right at the expense of the other? If the father honors his son by not speaking out against Bush, then shouldn’t the mother feel the same way? We’ll have to call that one a wash.

You also forget that the reasons for war changed. Many people who supported the war no longer support it.

An interesting juxtaposition to the Sheehan case is that of Pat Tillman. He was from just down the road in San Jose. His parents are not part of the anti-war movement, but they are mad as hell with the lies the army/administration seemed to proffer regarding the death of their son. It seems the army wanted to hold him up as a hero while conveniently leaving out that he was killed by friendly fire. This is part of the ongoing propaganda campaign by Bush. We don’t want to hurt army recruitment after all. And what do conservative make of this case?

So what exactly is happening in Iraq these days? Does anyone know? There is an amazing lack of information coming from Bush and his people. Most accounts in the media portray a fairly depressing situation over there. Of course, conservatives blame this on the liberal media. Everyone's ganging up on the conservatives. The left is being so mean. "Why can't they just get on board with the war and support the president?" God, I've never heard such whining before.

Aren't we in Iraq to give the people there the freedom to do exactly what liberals are doing now? Isn't that what democratization is all about?

I have yet to hear one conservative who could articulate a coherent idea of why we're in Iraq and what a successful outcome would be. This isn't surprising considering Bush himself has been unable to do the same. The question becomes, then, how can one get on board when it's not clear what one is getting on board with?

I'm not sure how Bush is going to salvage his second term. The cost for Katrina is greater than the entire Iraq war so far. Oops! (and maybe the Kyoto protocol should be ratified after all. Oops again.) He has borrowed the money for Iraq and now must borrow for Katrina. Who gets stuck with the bill? You and I, my friend. It's gotta come from somewhere. However, as long as Bush is in office, we will hear the continuing mantra of tax cuts, and Americans deserving to keep money in their pockets etc. News flash: huge deficits are just tax increases in waiting. Bush may be banking on another boom in the stock market, but markets don't like wars too much, since they don't really add to efficiency and productivity. They're bad for morale too, and poor Bush is experiencing that in spades.

Bush has dug himself quite a hole, and his approval numbers reflect that. It shouldn't be a surprise. Liberals have continuously pointed out that he's been a verifiable flop in everything he has undertaken. Given the hardest job in the world, why would that trend change? I know, we're just a bunch of boo bears. Why can't we get on board with Bush? Why? Look around people - he's made an absolute mess of things.

Moral: people who screw up baseball teams or who hold positions as sinecures in 3rd-rate oil companies should not be entrusted as leaders of the free world. The world should be spared from his clumsy stupidity. (Conservative whine to follow: “there you go again; he’s not stupid; he went to HBS. Blah blah blah blah blah.”)

 

Including your posts in this thread?





Hi Tom!

 

Once again, good points Tom. Have a good weekend!



Abner

 

If I die over here and my mother acts the way Cindy Sheehan is, I will feel dishonored.

I'm only one conservative (I actually consider myself a constitutionalist), but here is why I am over here. We've created a giant magnet for every Islamic terrorist in the world here in Iraq. They are flocking here like crazy to "repel" the western invaders. But for every terrorist/murderer that comes here, that's one less terrorist that makes it to America. If we can keep them coming here instead of America, and keep the American people from dying in another terrorist act, then it's worth it.

Just my opinion.

S/F, Ryan IV

 

Dear S/F, Ryan IV,

I am indebted and offer my gratitude to you!

Be safe.

 

Hi Ryan

Ditto what Jimmy said. Everyone in the U.S. owes you and your compatriots thanks, gratitude, and more.

 

Yes Soldier, you are entitled to your opinion. Nobody is questioning your service as a soldier, Democrat or Republican. Anybody who says otherwise is a fool. I wish you well.

My prayers and meditations are with you.


Sensei Abner