Mom of Slain Soldier Stages Bush Protest.

[k]

No, we know from his father that he re-enlisted for patriotism. 'Being there for his fellow soldiers' was why he entered the battle in Sadr-city. As for Sheehan, I would defend her right to protest the war, and I mean that. If she believes what she believes, she should camp out at the ranch until 2008 if she likes. My problem is that she is using her sons honorable service and sacrifice to further a goal her son didn't support. It seems pretty clear for me that Casey would want her to stop, and wouldn't agree with what she's doing. If she wants to continue to protest, do so. But leave him out of it. Don't wave the 'dead son' banner when that son chose to re-enlist because he loved his country and chose to enter the battle that got him killed. That IS a dishonor to him, and I think you know that, friend.

Main question: how do any of us know Casey would want her to stop? I think it's a bit unreasonable to ask a mother to leave her dead son out of the picture considering the picture would not exist without her son being in it. (At least for her)

I wish we had more info about Casey and his parents because what most of us are doing is mere speculation.

 

[k]

Guess the Sheehan fiasco reveals much, and in many ways. One of the cries against the Middle East is, "They hate our Freedom." Mrs. Sheehan could make the same charge against some who have a Social Security number. The only difference is her charge would be accurate.

*Point of Clarification: this is addressing the "professionals" on tv and radio who have called Mrs. Sheehan every name in the book.

 

[k]

As I am also reminded of the trust Uriah the Hittite had for the orders he was given:

14And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. 15And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die. 16And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were . 17And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also. (II Samuel 11)

Yes, no doubt Uriah died honorably, in his obedience while carrying out dishonorable orders. Now, about the question of those who are currently giving the orders, and the nature of those orders being given...

Thank you for that scripture and it fits so well into our situation now.

 

[MaryS]

Saddam didn't have WMDs. Scott Ritter told us this, and he was in a better position to know than most people.

15 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council found Saddam to be in material breach of the WMD resolutions.

The following statements are not from the 1990's:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in
Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and
chemical weapons." - Bill Clinton, July 23, 2003

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D,MA), Jan. 23. 2003. "

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And as for the gasses used on the Kurds, the USA sold them to him.

Lesson learned: Don't sell destructive materials to known bad guys.

What is your evidence that the USA government was involved in selling materials to gas the Kurds? I do know that the USA lifted sanctions on Iraq in the 1980's to give them weapons in their war against Iran.

A far as the lesson learned, hindsight is 20-20. We don't know who our next enemies or allies will be. The USA was allied with Japan and Italy in WWI and sold Japan supplies right up until just before Pearl Harbor. The Communists were also our allies during WWII.

The USA is not much different than other countries when it comes to war-time alliances. Enemies of our enemies become our allies. Nations will align themselves with other nations they disagree with as long as there are common enemies to defeat.

 

[GreenPartyVoter]

Mary,

The quotes you mentioned were recent, yes, but the intel they relied on was old. The inspectors were finding (and are finding) no evidence of Saddam having a still-working weapons program. I think we could have found that out by keeping people up left and right and THEN finding out, which is my point.

As for selling him chemical weapons, you are saying it was all well and good for him to use them on Iranians, but not Kurds? My point is we should not make allies of countries that are not democracies, otherwise this sort of thing can go on. Now as you point out some od those democratic nations for whatever reason may become our enemies (Like Russia may end up there again.. but then Russia is barely hanging on to democracy thes days.), that's something different.. but why align ourselves from the get-go with non-democratic countries we know are likely to commit atrocities?

Some might call me an idealist but I prefer to take the high road, is all.

 

[Scribbler]

We've always needed to maintain good relationships with unsavory leaders (i.e. the Shah) to keep them from falling to communist Russia (who'd actually tried to invade Iran already). Throughout the 50's to 70's, Communism was the biggest threat to world peace. Islamic terrorism wasn't a major player until the 1980's. Sometimes the devil we knew was better than the devil we didn't. Take Iran-the Shah was no prize, but he was better than communist Russia running the show in the Mid East, and certainly better than what came after him.

 

[MaryS]

Mary,

The quotes you mentioned were recent, yes, but the intel they relied on was old. The inspectors were finding (and are finding) no evidence of Saddam having a still-working weapons program.

AHHH, bring back Bill Clinton! We were doing daily bombings of Iraq instead of risking the lives of our troops and the media didn't focus on it.

It wouldn't surprise me if some day history will prove that Iraq and some other enemies of the USA were secretly allied with Al Qaeda so they could attack America without being pointed at.

 

[Scribbler]

It wouldn't surprise me if some day history will prove that Iraq and some other enemies of the USA were secretly allied with Al Qaeda so they could attack America without being pointed at.

Post #117

 

[Wolf Georges]

It wouldn't surprise me if some day history will prove that Iraq and some other enemies of the USA were secretly allied with Al Qaeda so they could attack America without being pointed at.

Hmm...sounds a bit iffy for the justification of a war. Two and a half years into this thing we know that there were no WMDs and have yet to see any strong tie to Al Qaeda. The whole UN resolution argument is kinda funny to me. It seems that we need to defend the UN's resolutions when they suit our agenda....but bash them and disregard them in the same breath. You gotta love politics. The depth of the moral bankruptcy of both of our political parties is mind boggling. We live in a great country that is being run by some truly questionable characters. Donkey or Elephant their cages all stink like poo!

Regarding the actual topic of this thread, it seems obvious that Ms. Sheehan has an agenda that goes beyond a mother's grief for her son. However, I do firmly believe that at the heart of her actions lies a deep grief that I pray to never know myself. I think she has a right to express herself without the foul bile that some pundits have heaped on her. Regardless of what her son may or may not have thought of it all.

Personally I don't agree with her message, but again, I can't imagine the pain that her brought her to this.

 

[GreenPartyVoter]

We've always needed to maintain good relationships with unsavory leaders (i.e. the Shah) to keep them from falling to communist Russia (who'd actually tried to invade Iran already). Throughout the 50's to 70's, Communism was the biggest threat to world peace. Islamic terrorism wasn't a major player until the 1980's. Sometimes the devil we knew was better than the devil we didn't. Take Iran-the Shah was no prize, but he was better than communist Russia running the show in the Mid East, and certainly better than what came after him.

Another interesting note about Iran was that they once had a democracy (50 years ago) but the CIA helped to overthrow it. That might have been helpful to the oil companies but clearly it didn't do the people of Iran much good.

 

[EIChief]

Hmm...sounds a bit iffy for the justification of a war. Two and a half years into this thing we know that there were no WMDs and have yet to see any strong tie to Al Qaeda. The whole UN resolution argument is kinda funny to me. It seems that we need to defend the UN's resolutions when they suit our agenda....but bash them and disregard them in the same breath. You gotta love politics. The depth of the moral bankruptcy of both of our political parties is mind boggling. We live in a great country that is being run by some truly questionable characters. Donkey or Elephant their cages all stink like poo!

Nobody can prove that there were no WMD's. All we know is that Saddam had them, and now they are not there. This hardly means that they were never there. In fact if they were not there then why not let the inspectors search the large "palace" locations. Why not just turn over what he had at the end of the cease fire per the agreement? Both wars with Iraq and the suffering of the Iraqi people were nobody's fault but Saddam's, and completely preventable

Regarding the actual topic of this thread, it seems obvious that Ms. Sheehan has an agenda that goes beyond a mother's grief for her son. However, I do firmly believe that at the heart of her actions lies a deep grief that I pray to never know myself. I think she has a right to express herself without the foul bile that some pundits have heaped on her. Regardless of what her son may or may not have thought of it all.

Personally I don't agree with her message, but again, I can't imagine the pain that her brought her to this.

I have no problem with this statement with the exception of the pundits heaping on her. If she would have kept this as one woman in a ditch in memory of her son then none of this would have happened. But the media forced her down our throats, and the left wing activists turned this into a meesy campaign for their agenda with the help of Mrs. Sheehan. The heaping is her own fault

 

[Wolf Georges]

Nobody can prove that there were no WMD's. All we know is that Saddam had them, and now they are not there. This hardly means that they were never there. In fact if they were not there then why not let the inspectors search the large "palace" locations. Why not just turn over what he had at the end of the cease fire per the agreement? Both wars with Iraq and the suffering of the Iraqi people were nobody's fault but Saddam's, and completely preventable

Again, that's a big maybe and not one that justifies a war. I recall Colin Powell's talk to the UN. He didn't say we think that there might be WMDs at some unknown location in Iraq...he displayed pictures that were very specific and, as it turns out, very inaccurate.

If we're going to speculate we could also ask, if Saddam had WMDs why didn't he use them when we began the invasion? Seem logical that a mad, tyrant would resort to his ultimate weapon while his world was crumbling around him.

I think that Saddam needed to posture. He was nowhere near as powerful as he needed the world....and his own country to believe. The threat of WMDs allowed him to stay in power. No argument from me that he was a terrible fiend but there are many of them the world over. In my opinion this does not justify this war.

I have no problem with this statement with the exception of the pundits heaping on her. If she would have kept this as one woman in a ditch in memory of her son then none of this would have happened. But the media forced her down our throats, and the left wing activists turned this into a meesy campaign for their agenda with the help of Mrs. Sheehan. The heaping is her own fault

So the wrongs of the left justify the wrongs of the right? Sorry, when it comes to a mother grieving for her child this argument is a little weak. I may not agree with Iraq but I would never confront a pro-war mother who lost a child in the war with this type of caustic rhetoric. To me it can't be justified. I think that both sides of this debate foster extreme arguments and use words that are overtly hurtful to try and make their point. To me, if your argument is strong you should never have to attack a person on this level. It breaks my heart to see it done by either of political extremes.

 

[MalcolmX]

I don't understand the anger in regard to people always using the death of a loved one to champion a cause. Ever hear of Megan's Law? How about the Connor and Laci Act (whatever the title was)? Death is used all the time, it just so happens are you justified in using that death. A family that uses the death from their own family is rightly justified, more justified than a person that is not blood related or married into that family.

 

[EIChief]

Again, that's a big maybe and not one that justifies a war. I recall Colin Powell's talk to the UN. He didn't say we think that there might be WMDs at some unknown location in Iraq...he displayed pictures that were very specific and, as it turns out, very inaccurate.

They were there. He was told to prove they were gone. He didn't, and was removed by the US and willing countries, enforcing the resolutions and cease fire agreement he was guilty of not conforming to.

If we're going to speculate we could also ask, if Saddam had WMDs why didn't he use them when we began the invasion? Seem logical that a mad, tyrant would resort to his ultimate weapon while his world was crumbling around him.

Since he had WMD's, and didn't use them on us, then he moved them sometime between 1998 and 2002 when there were no inspectors. If he proves that they were destroyed like he was suppose to then there is no war. But he didn't, so nobody knows if they were moved or destroyed and he remains in violation of the UN Resolutions and the Cease fire of Gulf war 1.

I think that Saddam needed to posture. He was nowhere near as powerful as he needed the world....and his own country to believe. The threat of WMDs allowed him to stay in power. No argument from me that he was a terrible fiend but there are many of them the world over. In my opinion this does not justify this war.

What justifies war is not based on opinion, it is based on years of defiance of the US and International Laws levied against him. Saddam should not have been posturing when he was ordered to prove the WMD's were destroyed or war was imminent. That is not posturing time, that is put up or shut up time. He postured for 11 years.

So the wrongs of the left justify the wrongs of the right? Sorry, when it comes to a mother grieving for her child this argument is a little weak. I may not agree with Iraq but I would never confront a pro-war mother who lost a child in the war with this type of caustic rhetoric. To me it can't be justified. I think that both sides of this debate foster extreme arguments and use words that are overtly hurtful to try and make their point. To me, if your argument is strong you should never have to attack a person on this level. It breaks my heart to see it done by either of political extremes.

Caustic rhetoric for pro-war mothers? Where are there pro-war mothers held up in ditches accusing anyone of anything? There are no hurtful words to Mrs. Sheehan that have to do with her son. Every person on here, and in the media has sympathized with on the death of her son. We just don't want the "Caustic Rhetoric" she is spewing shoved in our faces any longer.

Let her protest, turn the cameras off of her, and find one of the thousands of pro-war mothers who lost children in this war to interview.

 

[GreenPartyVoter]

We just don't want the "Caustic Rhetoric" she is spewing shoved in our faces any longer.

Let her protest, turn the cameras off of her, and find one of the thousands of pro-war mothers who lost children in this war to interview.

They have been interviewing pro-war mothers who also lost children.

If you don't like what Cindy has to say, change the channel or turn the page.

 

[reverend B]

are we punishing the mother for the sins of the media? that sounds like what i am hearing.
one thing i have never understood. if iraq was in violation of u.n. sanctions, where did the u.s. get the authority to act unilaterally? 'cause we said so? only the u.n. had that authority, and they had decided that the inspections were being effective in view of sadaam's non-aggression, in spite of his macho posturing (which he shares with many others, it seems). in gulf war 1, we didn't go into baghdad because it was not the mission as defined by the u.n. we were to remove the iraqi's from kuwait. little george's dad had more integrity than his son did in regard to our u.n. responsiblilities (though dad had some interesting moral schisms of his own).
is there actually anyone on this thread that thinks that this was truly the last resort, that no other options were left to pressure sadaam into doing what the u.n. wanted? that our danger was so imminent that we crossed a line of aggression we had not approached in over two hundred years? was this pot-bellied twit a greater threat than hitler, who we ignored for a decade before challenging his aggression? i can understand trying to justify this horrible miscalculation. people are what people are and will usually defend themselves, even in the face of humiliation for doing it. but does anyone think that there was NO other option? really?

 

[JPPT1974]

They have been interviewing pro-war mothers who also lost children.

If you don't like what Cindy has to say, change the channel or turn the page.

I wonder how long she is going to last standing out there protesting Bush because her chances of meeting here are five trillion to none it seems.

 

[GreenPartyVoter]

I wonder how long she is going to last standing out there protesting Bush because her chances of meeting here are five trillion to none it seems.

Especially since he is high-tailing it to Idaho shortly.

 

[Scribbler]

I wonder how long she is going to last standing out there protesting Bush because her chances of meeting here are five trillion to none it seems.

This was never about a face-to-face with the president. This was about a media circus, one she and her sponsors put together. One that the MSM is all too eager to provide assistance for. All the old cliches were there-candlelight vigils, tears, even 'threats of impending' arrests that mysteriously appeared and disappeared just as quickly. Same as it ever was....

 

[GreenPartyVoter]

This was never about a face-to-face with the president. This was about a media circus, one she and her sponsors put together. One that the MSM is all too eager to provide assistance for. All the old cliches were there-candlelight vigils, tears, even 'threats of impending' arrests that mysteriously appeared and disappeared just as quickly. Same as it ever was....

Don't forget the death threats, the gun shooting, the mowing down of the crosses and flags, and the forced move of Camp Casey. Those things also brought more attention to her.