« Bochco Botches "Over There" | Main | Random Searches vs Profiling »

Comments

S.D.

"It's what Casey would want you to do."??

Did you know him or are you making an assumption? IMO, Unless you knew him,(I didn't), you might want to think twice claiming to know what he'd "want" his Mother to do.

gypsy

The family urging Mrs. Sheehan to go home is, as I understand it, her in-laws and as she is at present separated from her husband I'm not sure they have any influence (or expectation of influence) over her. I have my own feelings about what she is saying but above all that I think that, as a parent, George Bush could meet with her at least long enough to say her name, say her son's name, and admit that he was operating under a mistaken assumption when he first sent our soldiers into Iraq. I agree that it's too late now to contemplate bringing them home just like this but he could at least admit what is now commonly known, that someone (maybe not the President, in fact most likely not him) either lied or at least colored the truth. If that doesn't satisfy her then she's overdoing it.

Doug

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122

Outstanding article by ANOTHER grieving Parent

sam

Why is it necessary to equate the personal bravery of our soldiers with an affirmation of our presence in Iraq and approval of the actions of George Bush in setting this in motion?
If you read the information at http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/piles-of-smoking-guns-kind-readers.html, you will see one of many references stating that George Bush had wanted to invade Iraq even before September 11. There has not been a whole lot of truth or consistancy in his Presidency. If media attention to Cindy stops even one family from experiencing her tragedy, then her actions are a success.

Our soldiers are dying, family lines are ending, children will never know their mother/father, reservists families are descending into poverty, the internal problems of our country do not have the money necessary to impliment solution because we are racking up huge debt in Iraq (Halliburton excepted). If this in any way actually was relevent to the events of September 11 and Al Queda, it would be one thing. However, I think that all of the above damage is merely a casualty to one of the more bloodthirsty Edipus complexes on record. No person or country should be deceived into sacrificing for another's personal issues. It's just morally wrong on so many levels. You stand, Cindy, and I will stand here, where I live, in support.

edeldoug

Ed response to Sam:

Why is it necessary to equate the personal bravery of our soldiers with an affirmation of our presence in Iraq and approval of the actions of George Bush in setting this in motion?

I thought the actions of Cindy Sheehan were the actions of a "Grieving Mom" seeking audience with the president to "Explain" why he "killed her son". My article pointed out simply that her son's killers were Islamoterrorist extremists, that Casey wasn't ordered into the danger zone by ANYONE, he insisted on going HIMSELF, and that, despite Cindy's objections, HE ENLISTED, TWICE!

If you read the information at http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/piles-of-smoking-guns-kind-readers.html, you will see one of many references stating that George Bush had wanted to invade Iraq even before September 11. There has not been a whole lot of truth or consistancy in his Presidency.

The link doesn't work, but it's already been proven more times than I care to site that the black helicopter conspiracy theories about Bush's plans for Iraq preceding Sept 11 are a fallacy.


If media attention to Cindy stops even one family from experiencing her tragedy, then her actions are a success.

War is hell. Soldiers die. It's a tragedy. But Cindy has glommed onto the leftest of the left drippy, kumbaya singing pacifist wackos for whom NOTHING is worth fighting for. (Or maybe she's just allowed them to glom onto her.) Sorry - that makes her a loon.
http://edeldoug.blogs.com/thoughts_rants_raves_and_/2005/08/the_antiwar_mov.html

Our soldiers are dying, family lines are ending, children will never know their mother/father, reservists families are descending into poverty, the internal problems of our country do not have the money necessary to impliment solution because we are racking up huge debt in Iraq (Halliburton excepted).

We have a VOLUNTEER military. NO one was conscripted to serve. Our deployed warfighters are warfighters by choice. They believe in what they're doing.


If this in any way actually was relevent to the events of September 11 and Al Queda, it would be one thing. However, I think that all of the above damage is merely a casualty to one of the more bloodthirsty Edipus complexes on record.

Re relevance to 9/11: http://edeldoug.blogs.com/thoughts_rants_raves_and_/2005/07/sept_11_iraq_ev.html

Re Oedipus - I miss your point. The Oedipus complex (get a dictionary!) refers to the desire to kill one's father and sleep with his mother. The connection to your point escapes me!

No person or country should be deceived into sacrificing for another's personal issues. It's just morally wrong on so many levels. You stand, Cindy, and I will stand here, where I live, in support.

You lefties love to spout platitudes without substantiation. What personal issue is the war effort in Iraq benefitting? What evidence can you show to support your allegation? Where is your substantiation? Put up or shut up! You want to stand with Cindy, be my guest. You'll be counted as loony as she.

The comments to this entry are closed.

News

  • News & Commentary

The Fighting 101st

  • JOIN UP! - Enlist Today
    JOIN UP