Cindy, go home!

An open letter to Cindy Sheehan:

Cindy,

First, let me state that I, like all Americans, share your sadness at your loss of Casey.  Every life lost in war is a tragedy.  None is replaceable.  Every loss hurts a circle of friends and family.  Your pain is real, and we share it.

That being said, your campaign and case against the Bush administration is groundless and you are embarassing yourself and your cause.

Let me point out a few facts that the leftmedia has conveniently omitted:

1) The President has already met with you in 2004.  You had no words of criticism for him then, but in fact you spoke favorably of your meeting.  Only later, once you had become either a political operative for the left, or a naiive dupe of those who are such political operatives, did you suddenly claim that Bush was anything less than empathetic in your meeting.

2) The president did not kill your son.  Followers of Al Sadr did.  No one disputes these are bad guys.  In fact - no one ordered your son into the danger-zone where he was killed!  He volunteered to go on that mission despite being specifically told he did not have to go.  Let me elaborate further.

3) Casey ENLISTED in the service - no one drafted him.  He RE-UPPED after serving his tour.  He felt he was part of something worthwhile.  Casey was trained as a Humvee mechanic.  He was stationed behind the lines.  When a convoy came under attack and radioed to base for assistance, Casey VOLUNTEERED to go help.  As a mechanic and not a line-soldier, he was advised that he had no obligation to go but he insisted.  He wanted to help out members of his team.  He knew the risks... he was ASKING to go into a FIREFIGHT!  Sadly, he and those accompanying him fell into an ambush.  Casey was killed by Al-Sadr followers while choosing to go try to assist other comrades who were under attack.  Bush didn't send him into the service.  Bush didn't make him sign up for a 2nd tour.  Bush didn't send him into the hot zone.  Bush didn't kill him.

4) Casey was a good and honorable soldier.  A hero, going above and beyond his duty.  Please don't dishonor that choice he made willingly by using his grave as a springboard to advance a leftist political agenda.  When you spout the cliche lines of "Bush Lied to get us into war", "Bush stole the election(s)", etc. you reveal your motivations are political and not simply those of a grieving mother.  Casey would be displeased. 

5) Your own family is urging you to shut up and go home.  They have sent an open letter to Matt Drudge who has posted it on the Drudge Report.  Quoted below:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Please, Cindy.  Go home and grieve in private.  It's what Casey would want you to do.

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.