August 13, 2005
How to really end the war (sorry Cindy Sheehan)
I’ve watched the past few days paying very close attention. What strikes me as interesting is we have Democrats such as John Kerry stating we need more troops as recently as June 30, 2005; yet hearing Democrats are demanding President Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan who has made it clear one of her primary goals is for the troops to come home now, is an obvious contradiction. How does this mixed message get by the majority of us?
Democrats want it both ways. They want you to believe they support the troops coming home yet then again, they make statements such as this:
Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.
"I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
So which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either you agree with Cindy Sheehan's demands that all troops be brought home immediately unless President Bush is willing to place his daughters in "harm's way" or you don't.
Stop playing games. Admit that many of you Congresspersons voted for this war in Iraq. Either you are for it and think we need more troops or you want an immediate withdrawl. While many of you seem to have no problem with the focus being on President Bush and the protest at Crawford the simple fact remains that had you, Republicans and Democrats alike, not given the President the authority and continued voting for funding we would not be in Iraq.
So, you can fool some of the people some of the time? But you cannot fool us all, and some of of us are asking which is it? How do you increase troops strength yet support what Cindy Sheehan's demands are? Stop trying to preen for the cameras so you do not appear to not support a grieving mother who has lost her son and be honest. Many of you Democrat Congresspersons are demanding more troops be sent and now. You may think you are letting the President take all the heat for the decision you had a part in, but some of us realize you are also to blame. Wait until the anti-war protestors realize that the key to ending this is not protesting at Crawford but at your doorsteps, every single one of you that voted in agreement to the war in Iraq and the continued funding. How many of you will send letters in her support if it is turned on you? Now that would be interesting to discover. If this is truly about ending the war and not about a bash Bush scenario, that would be the logical next step.
For those of you that want a source?
One of many
Lisa, Lisa, you are making a huge mistake here. Just as their are Republicans who insist on a balanced budget today, and those who insist that a deficit is actually a positive thing for the economy, you are confusing two separate groups of Democrats. Some Democrats insist we bring the troops home now. Others insist that we must finish seeing through our obligation to train Iraqis to defend themselves and then bring our troops home. There is a 3rd group which says we must set a date and put the Iraqis on notice, that they have just that long to get their act together.
Trying to make schizoprhenia out of one Democratic Party due to differing factions within the party just does not hold up logically, at all.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2005 01:32 AMWe cannot leave Iraq. We must stay until the Insurgency is completely eradicated. Only then will America’s Honor be satisfied. Once Iraq is pacified, we can then liberate Iran from the despotic Regime that oppresses them.
You are all being UnAmerican in your lack of faith.
Posted by: Aldous at August 13, 2005 02:53 AMOnce again Aldous hits the nail right on the head.I am in full agreemenmt.
Thank you for your insight and perceptiveness Aldous.
Posted by: steve smith at August 13, 2005 09:12 AMHey Aldous. My three-year old boy is driving me nuts. I know the Army is inducting 42-year old recruits. What’s the minimum age?
Lisa, I think you can encourage President Bush to meet with the mother of a boy he sent to die regardless of her personal agenda.
Blessedly, I’m outside the US, so I’m not deluged with this spectacle. As far as I’m concerned, this whole issue is blown so out of proportion. Mrs. Sheehan’s support is coming from a few anti-war activsts and a national media that is obsessed with sensationalism. She’d be a lot more convincing if she had a petition with millions of signatures on it.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 13, 2005 11:20 AMOf course there is no “one” Democrat, nor “one” Republican or “one” of any part. However some of the very Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq and the funding are the same ones demanding Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan.
I’m not claiming they are being schizoprhenic, I am however trying to make the point that while anyone who supposedly doesn’t support Cindy is a “Bush supporter” there are those in Washington working against what her goal is. It’s also obvious that the protestors would rather be anti-Bush then realize the role Democrats had in this as well.
Over and over again you see “This Republican War” when the reality is Democrats supported this war and some still do. Independents supported this war and some still do.
So my advice on how to end it still stands. Protesting at Crawford isn’t going to do it.
Part of the responsibility for it happening lies at the doors of Democrats as well.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 13, 2005 11:21 AMListen folks,
Sheehan’s son “voluntarily joined the guard. He had no problem like many of his peers in reaping the benefits while only attending weekend drills once a month. Just like Toyota…you asked for it you got it. Was he and his family actually so naive as to believe that we have the guard and reserves just so they can shop the PX on weekends and rack up retirement points? Cindy Sheehan had no big issues when she met with the president after her son was killed, no….only months later when liberal leftwing anti-American protesters rallied to “her cause” BS! These crack heads funded by anti American interests duped our youth and citizens and tore our country apart once before. Cindy Sheehan currently is actually soiling the name and honor of her dead son for her own personal attention. SHAME on you Cindy! Shame on you! How could you turn America’s memory of your son from that of Hero to piece of shit?
Wow, Jim. Do they teach you to attack Moms like that in the US Army? Do you hate apple pie, too?
Posted by: American Pundit at August 13, 2005 12:04 PMJim, I agree Casey Sheehan not only volunteered but re-enlisted, however the name calling isn’t necessary on either side.
No matter if you agree with her or not, it can never take away the fact that Casey Sheehan died in service of his country with honor. This is separate from anything his family says or does and cannot be taken away.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 13, 2005 12:07 PMSheehan and the organization backing her position in Crawford, are growing. They are receiving hundreds of calls, money is pouring in, they have a couple hundred people camped out there, and more call each day how asking how they can help.
Sheehan, herself, will have no effect on Bush or policy. But, Sheehan as a figurehead for the majority sentiment in this country that Iraq was a mistake, and is not being managed well, has the potential of sparking a vocal movement and focal point for anti-Iraq sentiment.
This organization has donated money to the Crawford police to help pay for additional police to come in and keep the demonstration peaceful and lawful. This organization has complied with every lawful request made of them, and they are not going to go away. This organization is becoming the kind of vigil representing broad sentiment in this country that the media are drawn to for sensationalist headlines. They are peaceful, bending over backwards to act lawfully, and the media knows, if it keeps growing, the pressure by all the media coverage on the Administration will grow to try to put an end to the vigil. It has all the potential makings of events in Montgomery in the ’60s or the college campus protests at Kent State.
Sheehan may possibly become Bush’s and the GOP’s Achilles Heel in 2006, especially if the government overreacts in its attempts to end the media coverage. BTW, the one breach of law that has occured so far, a group of folks moving out onto the highway interfering with traffic, was not committed by anyone in the Sheehan group. All those folks in the highway breaking the law were media trying to get tape on the Sheehan group lawfully assembled in the ditch along side the road.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2005 12:17 PMDavid,
Sheehan may possibly become Bush’s and the GOP’s Achilles Heel in 2006
That is exactly what motivated me to write this last night. If this is truly an anti-war protest then why should Democrats who supported the war and continue to support it get a free pass?
President Bush is done after this term, and yes he is responsible for the war in Iraq, however the key point is he did not do this alone nor was it just Republicans that supported this.
If the goal for this is accountability then it should be extended across the board. If it is to merely attempt to hurt the GOP, then it is not an anti-war group, it is an anti-republican group.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 13, 2005 12:30 PMI would add that what I would like to see is both parties lose seats replaced by Independent or Third Party Candidates. This would be a good opportunity for them to step to the front. I know Nader has made it clear he supports Cindy Sheehan from what I understand. While I am not a fan of his, what he is doing is smart because there are huge numbers of Americans who do not support the war.
While focusing on republicans only could hurt them in 2006, if they are merely replaced with democrats that to me is not any more of an ideal situation than we currently have.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 13, 2005 12:42 PMLisa said: “If this is truly an anti-war protest then why should Democrats who supported the war and continue to support it get a free pass?”
This appears a non-sequitir to me, Lisa. It is not the Democratic Party camped out in Crawford. It is citizens against the continuance of (in their words) “an unjustified, immoral, losing war” for American soldiers and taxpayers. Since 60% plus Americans polled today view the Iraq war as going badly, it would appear many Republicans are siding with Sheehan’s view of the Iraq war going forward.
You seem intent on making anti-Iraq war sentiment a political party issue, I just don’t see any evidence that such sentiment grows out of party affiliation at all.
I have already written vehemently here and in the Dem/Lib column that Congressional Democrats are as responsible for entering the war in Iraq as Republicans. But, that is the past.
The current situation is, having seen the progress of the war, Republicans overall refuse to consider leaving Iraq until their political decision to invade has been vindicated which could take generations. Whereas, the Democrats, overall, demand a plan to extricate ourselves from Iraq within the next couple years if not earlier regardless of whether vindication of entering Iraq is achieved or not. That seems to be the political football being fought over presently.
I would add that what I would like to see is both parties lose seats replaced by Independent or Third Party Candidates.
I agree entirely. At the very least an anti-incumbent move would do this country a tremendous amount of good. At the core of our elective system is the principle that politicians are held accountable for government performance by whether or not they are elected or reelected. With so much dissatisfaction by Americans of all parties, theoretically, an anti-incumbency movement would be the only rational ballot choice in 2006. But, I won’t hold my breath for such an outcome.
Replacing Republicans with Democrats is realistically the only alternative to voting incumbents back in office which sends a message of approval for how our country is being run. Therefore, replacing Republicans with Democrats would be healthy, though like you, I would prefer far more independents. Democrats elected to replace Republicans may or may not be a good thing depending on what issues they campaign on and whether they live up to those campaign positions that got them elected.
Anti-incumbency however, is the only power voting citizens have to direct government action. I pray this simple truth is not lost on voters dissatisfied with government in 2006.
My intention was to make this political to get the message out that merely focusing on Republicans as the cause was not accurate.
It was already political before this because the focus is on hurting Bush and the GOP, I am trying to extend that so that the realization that it is not just Republicans who are accountable is presented.
We disagree on many points of this, but I agree anti-incumbency is the way to go. That is why in my opinion, the focus has to be on Democrats as well.
Replacing a Republican Majority with a Democratic Majority to me is not much different than we have now. Unless the next President is also a Republican. I believe traditionally government is more responsible if the majority in Congress is of a different party than the President.
Are my dreams of having more Independent and Third Party Congresspersons instead of merely more Democrats possible? Perhaps not, but it is what I would like to see happen. Call it the idealistic part of me, I still have hope it can happen.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 13, 2005 01:59 PMI heard yesterday that the administration was ready to deal with this problem by calling out the National Guard, until they realized that the Guard was in Iraq.
Posted by: Rocky at August 13, 2005 02:11 PMDavid Remer: Your comments are right-on.
Lisa: I’m a Democrat and I was against the war from the beginning. I was very upset with the Democrats that voted for the war.
Today, however, I believe that we should leave Iraq only after it appears Iraqis can get along without us. If more troops are needed to do this, fine.
Nevertheless, Bush should tell the Iraqis and us the specific conditions under which we will leave Iraq. And that we will leave no military bases behind.
Now, I’m four square for Cindy Sheehan. She represents the peaceful tendencies that I possess and that are missing in the general population. Americans are too belligerent and too eager to express their supremacy.
Some Democratic officeholders - not many, I agree - are coming around to my point of view. I hope the movement instigated by Cindy Sheehan sprouts more officials who believe that negotiation is better than violence, peace is better than war.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at August 13, 2005 03:13 PMToday, however, I believe that we should leave Iraq only after it appears Iraqis can get along without us. If more troops are needed to do this, fine.
Define “can get along without us”. Does this mean stability? Is one of the criteria that they can’t descend into civil war to solve their problems? What *exactly* does getting along without us entail?
Posted by: Jarin at August 13, 2005 04:16 PMWhat strikes me as interesting is we have Democrats such as John Kerry stating we need more troops as recently as June 30, 2005; yet hearing Democrats are demanding President Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan who has made it clear one of her primary goals is for the troops to come home now, is an obvious contradiction.
In all sincerity, I don’t get the contradiction here. Just because some Democrats are demanding the President meet with Cindy Sheehan does not necessarily imply that those Democrats are anti-war. You can support someone without sharing thier beliefs. I think Bush should meet with her out of simple courtesy and to demonstrate that he’s willing to take responsibility for his actions. He doesn’t have to agree with her—just meet with her and talk to her sincerely this time. If he had done that on day one this all would have faded away by now, so I also believe he made a serious political mistake by not doing so. Now Cindy will be on the cover of People magazine (for starters), so her voice is here to stay.
The Presidents latest not so catchty catchphrase “when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down”(never mind the walking part,they will figure that as they go) is just another attempt at trying to win the war with slogans rather a change in policy.Although I cant qualify the rumours that commanders on the ground have been asking for more troops even before this Iraq adventure started I can say with a certain amount of confidence that conquring and occupying a hostile nation of 35 million would take more troops than we have right now.
Consider that the US sent close to half a million troops to the first Gulf War in what was a get in-get out operation supported by 31 other countries.Common sense would dictate that there should been a comparable level of force this time around.This would not have been impossible if we had a coalition of the truly willing.Preferably built along the same lines as the first Gulf war’s.But that is another story.
As far as Cindy Sheehan stalking the president and ruining his vacation while the nation is at war :She needs to get a life and realise that no matter how much noise she makes she is only one person and she will not make a difference.She needs to remember that the forces arrayed against her nearly kicked a president out of office not too long ago,walked all over most of the other 192 members of the UN,told France and Germany to shove diplomacy where the sun dont shine and pretty much brainewashed the rest of us into believing that anybody who as much as squeaked anything about the war being fought in the wrong place at the wrong time was a unpatriotic s.o.b who deserved to be lined up with the enemy and shot in the back of the head while the onlooking crowd chanted slogans like “four more years! four more years!” while waving flipflops- even as they gave an excuse a day for why your son was over there.
Mrs Sheehan needs to remember that under the new order the abilty to separate the war from the warrior has been found to be a leading cause of mistrust and hatred from people who squirm when they are called chickenhawks,or people who talk about the courage of men and women like her son while at the same time cutting military benefits.
Why Cindy!Why are you rocking the boat?Dont you know that this is way above your head?Why cant you be satisfied withe flag that you got at your son’s funeral and quit asking all this uncomfortable questions?The sooner you accept that your son is no more than a statistic to the people that sent him there the sooner you will come to closure.
Oh by the way,before the rightwing media is done with you, you will come out looking like the devil’s bride.Just so you know.
John Doe:
The thing about Sheehan is that she’s not just one person. She has a great many supporters, a large number of whom have already joined her at Crawford.
Posted by: Jarin at August 13, 2005 06:27 PMLisa Renee,
Excellent post. You formulated your position very well.
Personally, I don’t support Cindy Sheehan. Her son made a choice. The fact that she doesn’t like that choice isn’t the President’s fault. Bringing the troops home on her say-so is totally unreasonable.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 13, 2005 07:35 PM“As far as Cindy Sheehan stalking the president and ruining his vacation while the nation is at war :She needs to get a life and realise that no matter how much noise she makes she is only one person and she will not make a difference.”
John Doe,
What an incredibly naive statement! Our nation’s entire history is built on “one person making a difference” and I don’t know how you can sit there and suggest otherwise. One person making a difference is at the very root of the American character.
A seemingly small action becomes symbolic to a larger group of individuals and it gives birth to a movement that can changes the course of history. You can’t start a fire without a spark and Cindy Sheehan just might prove to be that spark in the anti-Irag War movement.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 13, 2005 07:38 PMLisa Renee,
Be careful how you categorize the Cindy Sheehan supporters. Just because we support her in taking a stand doesn’t mean we necessarily support every position of hers.
This is how I view the situation (and I suspect many others on the Left have similar sentiments). I am fully behind Cindy taking a stand and calling on Bush for answers and accountability. I don’t technically agree with her stance on withdrawing troops.
Despite our differences in opinion, I believe the most important thing she’s doing is forcing Bush’s hand. She is, very simply, the first person to hold Bush accountable. If Bush’s decision to lead us into war was truly justified, then he should have nothing to hide and his answer will be sufficient for both Cindy and the American public. If his decision was not justified it will be evident by his continued stonewalling, and by bringing the justifications for war into the public discourse Bush will finally be held accountable.
Bush has gotten a free pass on taking us to war thus far. All Cindy is doing is holding him accountable like every leader should be. If he was right, then he’s got nothing to worry about. So I don’t know why those on the Right are making such a big deal out of this. This is nothing more than democracy in action.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 13, 2005 07:54 PMLisa:
Absolutely correct. He did die in service to his country, and he did so voluntarily. He is to be considered a hero. No matter what.
Now, as for Cindy Sheehan, It DOES NOT matter what her agenda might be or not be in her wanting to meet with the president. She is a tax paying American citizen, she lost her son “in service to his country.” She deserves no less than to be granted the audience. Remember, Mr. Bush works for HER. I totally support her in her quest to be heard. I will also support her if she(or you, or any other citizen) wants the meeting for any other reason. It is the partisan vs. partisan issue that is making this such a sour subject.
You attacked John Kerry and quoted him saying we needed more troops in Iraq. HE WAS RIGHT! If we send our “sons” to war, (ESPECIALLY when voluntarily enlisted) we OWE it to them to do what we can to keep them alive.
Because John Kerry is now in support of Cindy Sheehan is IRRELEVANT!
You wrote,
How do you increase troops strength yet support what Cindy Sheehan’s demands are?
Again, the two Are not related. Like I said, I too support her in her quest to get an audience with the president. I DO NOT, however,agree with the message of bringing the troops home or sending over his daughters. You don’t seriously think if she did succeed in getting the meeting and stating her demands, (even if 90% of the population agreed with it)that mr. Bush would really send his daughters to Iraq?
Stop playing games. Admit that many of you Congresspersons voted for this war in Iraq.
Yes, based on their belief in their leader and the message he gave them they sat aside their politics and ignorantly gave the president their support. Many from BOTH parties now REGRET this choice, especially in light of what they (and we) all know was a lie.
You may think you are letting the President take all the heat for the decision you had a part in, but some of us realize you are also to blame.
This implies that YOU too now know it was a lie and that there is ACTUALLY blame to be assigned.
sassyliberal
I find all this Sheehan talk pointless. Her presence will just be used as propaganda by America’s Enemies. Like O’Rielly said, incidents like Abu Graib, Guantanamo and the violence in Iraq are just weakening America’s Moral Superiority. We should ban all Reporters from Iraq and arrest all Americans who hurt America. They used to do this in the 50’s but the Liberals put a stop to it. We must bring back those policies and methods to root out the rot of those who hate America.
Posted by: Aldous at August 13, 2005 09:15 PM“I find all this Sheehan talk pointless. Her presence will just be used as propaganda by America’s Enemies. Like O’Rielly said, incidents like Abu Graib, Guantanamo and the violence in Iraq are just weakening America’s Moral Superiority. We should ban all Reporters from Iraq and arrest all Americans who hurt America. They used to do this in the 50’s but the Liberals put a stop to it. We must bring back those policies and methods to root out the rot of those who hate America.”
Yes, I too think we should turn America into a fascist regime (As if we weren’t painfully close to that already). Damn liberals putting an end to tyranny! TRAITORS!
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 13, 2005 09:48 PMJarin,Andrew:
Explaining sarcasm and irony has never been my strongest point.If you’d actually read my whole piece you would have no doubt come to the conclusion that I support her cause and her actions inspite of the opposition she is up against.Damn! I should have taken those writing lessons.
Another thing Andrew,on your 9:48 pm post:You should have moved to the Soviet Union when you had the chance.
David:
Trying to make schizoprhenia out of one Democratic Party due to differing factions within the party just does not hold up logically, at all.
Aren’t they? Hasn’t that been one of the issues all along?
And isn’t the schozoprhenia of the Democratic party a legitimate discussion?
Wouldn’t our country be better off either way if the Democratic party would have spoken as one voice like on Social Security?
If the Democratic Party can block Social Security, then they could have blocked the War Resolution. If they would have backed the resolution in overwelming numbers, our country would have been more united throughout this war. Either way, wouldn’t the country have been better off?
Craig
I don’t believe in either the Democrat or the Republicans. I am an independent who typically votes Libertarian.
So for me I see some of the behavior on both sides as very similiar. I’m advised not to characterize the Cindy Sheehan supporters, yet blanket characterizations is something done often.
I see hypocrisy and a lack of honesty from both parties. Of course there are individual congresspersons from both parties that are worthy and that I have voted for when there has not been a viable independent candidate.
So I find it very ironic that the target of the protest at Crawford is the President and the GOP when the reality is not only is the war in Iraq supported by Democrats as well, but some of them believe more troops are needed, which is not what the President agrees with. One of these very persons who supports the idea of more troops being sent is the one chosen by Democrats as who they wanted to be their Presidential Candidate.
I understand taking a position where you are nicely saying both sides are really not worth much isn’t going to be popular. The majority of you are either Democrat or Republican. Some of you agree with some of my points, some of you don’t, that’s fine.
There is an underlying level of frustration myself and other Independents feel when we watch both parties play their games of “it’s different when I do it”. I have never stated Cindy Sheehan does not have the right to protest, she does as we all do. However that does not guarantee her any more of a right to have the President personally meet with her than I have.
If this was a serious effort to really end the war what I suggested, protesting Congress would be a more effective method. If this is about trying to hurt the GOP, what is being done makes sense.
However, excuse me if I don’t jump up and down for joy at the idea of one group replacing the other. I firmly believe in the words of George Washington who made it extremely clear that allowing parties to create a powerhold is something we should have avoided.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 13, 2005 10:54 PMSassyliberal, I do not buy the line that the poor Congress was misled and they should be held blameless. They are just as accountable and there is no doubt that they supported the idea of the US going into this war without the consent of the UN. Adding further to that, let’s say for the sake of the argument that these men and women where misled by the Crafty George Bush. Once they became aware of this horrible misleading they could have acted. They could have stopped government in it’s tracks until this was addressed. Yet, the few who have tried are not supported and many not only continue to fund the war but some suggest more troops need to be sent.
So, to me? They are equally as accountable. They have said we need a better plan, this was mismanaged, awesome Monday morning quarterbacking but no demands for real action or demands their plans be put into place. Even as a minority they do still have some abilities, if they chose.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 13, 2005 11:08 PMAre my dreams of having more Independent and Third Party Congresspersons instead of merely more Democrats possible? Perhaps not, but it is what I would like to see happen.
Lisa, I’m inclined to agree with you. If you want to grow the third party ranks, take all the peaceniks with you (but leave the anti-Iraq war folk - sometimes war is necessary, but that one is just wrong). Take Sean Penn, take Jane Fonda, and take Michael Moore - oh wait, Michael Moore isn’t a Democrat - take ‘em all. Build the biggest anti-war party ever. Have a ball.
Lisa Renee,
I have to say, your last 2 responses are right on! I too am neither republican nor democrat. I agree that since Congress and the American people were indeed misled (IMO Deliberately misled) by this administration. (of course I never give Mr. Bush enough credit to consider him “crafty”) But as you say, now that we know differently, congress indeed needs to step up. Stop pointing fingers at each other and start working together to figure out a solution. You and I both know this means we, as voting citizens, need to hold not just the president and his administration accountable, but we need to hold ALL of our representatives accountable. This is the ONLY way we will prevail in this dire situation our country has waded into. They indeed are EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE.
You are also right on saying that we (as a collective nation) were wrong to have ever let a party get a powerhold.
Also, I never meant to imply I felt Ms. Sheehan is more deserving of a presidential audience than you me or the average joe-voter. Just that as a citizen, and especially one who has just lost her son in this needless war she is definitely entitled to be heard. I also agree with all the sentiments voicing concern that she is wasting the opportunity by demanding a troop pull-out or putting the twins in harms way. But to hold the country’s leaders accountable, More Power to her!!
I’m also with ya on wanting more third-party representatives. (or 4th and 5th party for that matter) I think we have all seen and heard enough from the present two. I know I have.
thanks, sassyliberal
Posted by: sassyliberal at August 14, 2005 12:39 AMCraig, No, No, Yes, No, and No!
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2005 01:18 AMAndrew L., we are in big trouble if terrorists start talking freedom and liberty. According to you, that would mean we Americans should never say such words.
Absurd argument, typically right wing, anyone who ain’t agreein’ with us is against us. Hah! Thank god America’s founding fathers saw fit to insure against folks who talk and think like that.
Oh, you are not right wing? OK, Left wing. How about middle wing? I mean we have got to use them and us terms so wings have to fit in there somehow, right?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2005 01:21 AMAfter reading Cindy’s letter to the President I completely understand why GWB wouldn’t be willing to meet with her. She may be peaceful. She may be sane. I bet she probably is. But, I don’t want to see ANY of our Presidents assisinated, and I wouldn’t trust her not to try.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 14, 2005 01:27 AMCindy Sheehan is a PR stunt. This is not meant to attack mothers or their grief, but she is really not representative of them. I don’t know what her son would think of her antics. Did he oppose the war? I just don’t know what he thought about it. Maybe we have some information about this. Sheehan is trading on what he son thought and did. What did he think?
She has no special standing to understand the complexities of war and peace. The appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy recognized as such since the time of the ancient Greeks. It is like the kid who uses his unhappiness as the reaon for flunking the math test.
Posted by: jack at August 14, 2005 10:29 AMIndeed, jack. Perhaps you could enlighten us on what IS representative for a grieving mother of a dead veteran who thinks her son was ordered to war by idiots?
You’re sentiment reminds me of Bill O’Rielly lecturing to John “POW” McCain on what torture is or isn’t. Again, attacking the messenger instead of the reality. The typical WingNut move.
Posted by: Aldous at August 14, 2005 10:58 AMJack said: “She has no special standing to understand the complexities of war and peace.”
Neither does the President, and yet, in America they are both entitled to express their views before the media if the media has an interest. And the media does, and it galls a lot of folks, don’t it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2005 11:31 AMStephanie, if passion makes murderers, then we should get Bush out of office immediately. He’s killed enough don’t you think?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2005 11:33 AMAldous
The situation is not analogous to John McCain. His claim to expertise was based on personal experience and knowledge, not on the fact that he suffered. Hers is based only on suffering.
She suffered a loss. She is grieving. This is undeniable. If she wants to talk to us about grief, we should certainly trust her opinion. But her expertise does not extend beyond that into areas where she otherwise has no experience.
The question is whether or not this grief gives her special insight into the facts of the war. Her son and any of the thousands of soldiers in Iraq know more about this subject on a first hand basis. Even in the matter of her grief, she speaks for herself. What does her husband think? Are his opinions the same as hers? What about the thousands of other parents who have suffered similar losses? Do they all share her opinions?
The appeal to emotion is strong. You frequently use it with your idea of Republicans fighting the war and are using a variation of it right now. But it is invalid as an argument. Think about it. If you suffer from cancer, are you an expert on cancer research. If your son is killed in an auto accident, do you become an expert on road safety? If you are struck by lighting, does that make you an expert on weather? In all those cases, it would be hard for anyone to argue against you, because you could appeal to your suffering, but your arguments would be no more valid because of your suffering, and you judgment could even be impaired by the very fact of suffering. .
I really believe we should separate Casey Sheehan from this as far as it having anything to do with his honor or his beliefs. His mother’s response to his death deciding she needed to protest the war is her own choice.
He volunteered planning on making the military a career. He re-enlisted knowing he was going to go to Iraq. He served proudly and with honor. He surprised his family by joining the military.
It appears Cindy did not support the war from the beginning, however when she lost her son it increased her hatred of the war. Also her dislike of the President increased as evidenced by her having nothing to do with inlaws that voted for him.
My son is a republican, so he doesn’t agree with alot of what I write or say, however he loves me because we have mutual respect for each other. I would assume given the fact that Casey and his mother still had what has been reported as a very close relationship that he felt the same about his mother. He would support her, and not want her to be attacked because she was his mother, yet he would still have his own beliefs that could be very different from hers.
Now some will say she is using his death, well of course she is, since it was his death that caused her to act. Had he not died she probably would have continued to not support the war but that would have been the end of it.
Many times we don’t act until something devistating happens. That’s human nature. A mother who’s child dies from a drunk Driver becomes an active MAAD member, a father who’s child is kidnapped and murdered becomes an advocate to change laws. We as society (and the media) embrace parents who are victims of these types of things and many times they do become spokespersons, because the movement behind them to change whatever the issue is realizes if they have a sympathetic figure out there it is going to make us respond more strongly.
So of course some of the anti-war groups have embraced her as their front person, they realize having Cindy out there is going to evoke more emotion than someone like Michael Moore.
I realize this may sound cold or too analytical, and I am not discounting her feelings as being real, just that I am very aware of how this is being packaged.
“The appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy recognized as such since the time of the ancient Greeks.”
Kind of like the way the Bush administration played on the American public’s emotions after 9/11 to convince them we should go to war with Iraq???
I don’t disagree with your premise, Jack, but unfortunately playing on emotions works rhetorically. Its what got us into this mess, so I don’t have any issue with it getting us out of it.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 14, 2005 01:18 PMDavid,
There is a difference between war and assisination. IF Sheehan’s motives are simply to put GWB on trial, then fine. She can see how far that takes her. IF her motives are to ruin GWB’s career, then fine, she ceases to be special and becomes one of many. She can target him, over everyone else that’s responsible for the war. That’s her choice. She can use her freedom to speak however she wishes within the bounds of the law.
But demanding a President meet with someone who’s not entirely rational and who is definitely antagonistic towards him, is foolhardy. I don’t want the President that represents this country taking that kind of risk, no matter how much the media howls. She has met the President. IF she really had something to say, she should have said it then. She shouldn’t have accepted his condolences and should have asked her questions then. Most Americans don’t get a first chance to meet the President. Why should she get a second? If her questions were so important, so relavent, then she should have asked them when she had the chance.
Instead she chose to spearhead a media blitz. It’s not about her questions. It’s not about meeting the President. It’s about getting attention for her cause.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 14, 2005 01:19 PMStephanie,
I don’t want the President that represents this country taking that kind of risk, no matter how much the media howls.I suspect the president can meet with her without taking any risk. Remember, this is the same “brave” president that can fly into an unstable Iraq to have a 10 minute Thanksgiving dinner with our troops (also a media blitz). If he can handle that kind of risk I think he can handle a conversation with a grieving mother in a secure location surrounded by innumerable Secret Service agents… Posted by: Charles Wager at August 14, 2005 02:02 PM
I’d suggest anyone who wonders why the President already knows meeting with her would not solve anything read this piece. It was written by Mike Ferner who is also from my same hometown. I am not posting this because I agree with it, but because I think it provides a clear picture of the types of statements being made.
This clearly in my opinion shows that it would not matter what the President said, and that this has become a power play of can she get the President to submit to her demands rather than it being about getting answers.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 14, 2005 02:14 PMAndrew
So using emotion to get us out of the war in Iraq. That is precisely the problem with emotional argument. You don’t know what to do. Her argument seems to be that we should prevent anyone else from dying in Iraq. Who disagrees with that desire? It doesn’t tell us whether more people would die if we pull out fast. Many Democrats contended that we had too few troops in Iraq. Pulling them out would seem illogical. Do we change our strategy? Mrs. Sheehan has no particular opinion on that beyond the “dying bad” that nobody disputes. We just have suffering with no actionable alternatives.
I don’t say it doesn’t work. I just said that it is a PR stunt. The longer is goes on, the more it becomes crass politics and the less it is about a mother’s grief. It is not designed to create or propose any real solution. As with most emotional arguments, it makes you feel either good or bad without giving you anything to do.
Jack,
I think you’re assuming that I (and others on the Left) necessarily believe in Cindy’s moral superiority or that I actually believe Bush has to answer her questions or that he has to submit to her demands. I don’t.
I’m behind Cindy for one very simple reason: ACCOUNTABILITY. She is the only person who’s thus far been effective in holding Bush publically accountable. SHE IS BRINGING THE ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY INTO THE PUBLIC DEBATE. She is making sure that reporters will finally have the balls to ask the tough questions and that the public will start to ask themselves about the justifications for war.
Our “Democracy,” in my opinion, was becoming very dangerous in that we’d stopped practicing the very things that made America a Democracy. Cindy is helping restore balance to the force. It is something we sorely needed as a country, and if Bush was right to take us to war then the American public will see that through debate. And if he was wrong, that too will be exposed. Bottom line, it is due time for this debate, so now that it’s finally out there let’s see what it will bear.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 14, 2005 02:54 PMStephanie, she did not create the organization that now supports her vigil. That organization came to assemble around her in support of their agenda and causes. She is neither their leader nor really their spokesperson beyond the fact that she is a citizen against the quagmire speaking to power.
It is important to keep Sheehan herself separate from all else that others do in her name. Hers was a voice on a road side in Crawford, to which a choir was drawn. She is not the choir, and the choir is not her, though they have in common the belief that they have the right to speak to power through the media in this country guranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2005 03:10 PMCindy says, “You do not have permission to use my son’s name.”
Well, actually he does. Casey Sheehan signed all sorts of papers when he joined the army and that’s part of it. Casey made that choice and nobody, not even his own mother, can take that away from him, nor should anyone try.
Cindy says, “He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East.”
He died to serve his country. He accepted GWB as his Commander-in-Chief and chose to spend his life to uphold the promises he made to the USA. He died honorably and his memory should be cherished.
Cindy says, “They say we must complete our mission… but why would I want one more mother to go through what I have, just because my son is dead?”
It’s not her decision. It was never her decision. Not when Casey joined the military. Not when civilians continue to joing the military. Not when more troops are ordered over there. None of that is her decision. All she gets to decide is whether or not she can accept the fact that her son made a decision she doesn’t like and that decision got him killed.
Cindy Sheehan can protest all she wants, but IMO it shows an extremem lack of respect for the decisions her son made. I wonder what the soldier who served with Casey, those who actually knew him, have to say about Cindy’s antics.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 14, 2005 05:50 PMDavid,
“Stephanie, she did not create the organization that now supports her vigil.”
So, what exactly is “co-founder of Gold Star Mothers for Peace” supposed to mean then? Why is she a “co-founder” if she didn’t participate in its organization as you claim. If your statement is true then what’s this supposed to mean.
“Cindy and Pat Sheehan along with myself “Auntie”, Jane and Jim Bright, Celeste Zappala, Bill Mitchell, Lila Lipscomb and Sue Neiderer have formed Gold Star Families for Peace Our group is open to any family member who have suffered the loss of a loved one in a war.”
Posted by: Stephanie at August 14, 2005 05:54 PMStephanie, that is a different organization than the one working with authorities and managing the demonstration in Crawford. NPR did an interview of the head of the organization down in Crawford, and that ain’t it, though no doubt, a few of the members of Sheehan’s organization are there at her side.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2005 09:12 PMDavid:
Craig, No, No, Yes, No, and No!
So we are better off with a divided Democratic party??
I would be interested in a tally in the Senate of major bills and Democratic support. My thesis is that Bush got more Democratic votes to go to war in Iraq than most other major initiatives.
Actually, I bet the war in Iraq got more votes than Judge Roberts will!!!
Craig
David,
I would be very interested in knowing who told Cindy Sheehan to go to Crawford, since that would be the one who spearheaded this media stunt. From what I’ve read she came up with the idea all on her own and merely announced it at a meeting. But, that’s just what Cindy claimed.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 02:28 AMJohn Doe,
As far as Cindy Sheehan stalking the president and ruining his vacation while the nation is at war :She needs to get a life and realise that no matter how much noise she makes she is only one person and she will not make a difference.
I don’t think the President should have a 5 week vacation while a war, that he started, rages on.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 15, 2005 03:05 PM Jim H US Army SGM retired:
Hey SGM H:
What gives You the right to question any ones Heroism, motives or beliefs. Last Time I checked, We are all entitled to our own opinions. You can’t deny the Heroism of any one, you may not agree with what constitutes a hero or not. You can though control the Speech of your subordinates that I agree with. But their thoughts and how they vote, is not only unethical it goes against the UCMJ & Warrior Ethos.
Wayne C., Sergeant First Class, USA Retired
Lisa,
Now you’ve gone and done it ;-)
This is the biggest can of worms I’ve ever seen you open :-)
Re: President Bush meeting (again) with Cindy Sheehan, I don’t see anything good coming of it. Besides, the willing media have already relayed Cindy’s “new” thoughts amply AND repeatedly. Dare I characterize it as Ad Nauseum?
We have started something (in Iraq) that we must finish. and the job will only be finished when Iraq’s own forces take charge of their own destiny (which we all hope will be soon).
Cindy needs to get her brain rewashed and stop dishonoring her son’s sacrifice. I agree that she is within her rights to speak out against the war, but I question the source of her “new attitude.”
I, as most Americans, look forward to the day that the Iraqis are truly free and our troops are back home.
-HT (a recovering Republican, now devout Conservative)
I’d try to plead innocence HT, but think you know better by now. :-)
To me it’s all about asking the hard questions, even if at times it’s not the popular ones to ask. I will either discover I was missing some information or have learned more that makes my opinion stronger.
As this situation has progressed since I originally wrote it, I have not changed my opinion of Cindy Sheehan or the Democrats who urge Bush to meet with her, yet are still stating we need more troops.
I don’t have the magical plan to how to solve Iraq either, but I do know that this protest has caused even more division. The only positive I can see at this point has been the Peace House in Crawford has raised over 100,000 so they can pay off their mortgage.
While I still support Cindy Sheehan’s right to protest, I still firmly believe that Democrats that supported the war in Iraq should also be held accountable else this to me makes it not about being against the war but about politics.
I’d love to see the war end just as most everyone does, however I’d also like it to not be a situation where the US will have to remain. Is this possible? That’s another answer I don’t have. At the end of the day though it would be nice to have some honesty. From both sides, and I don’t feel either the Democrats or the Republicans in office are giving much of that at this point.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 16, 2005 11:03 PMCindy Sheehan needs to stay home for good. The rhetorical question she is asking was answered by Bush long ago, whether you agree or disagree with him. What just cause? Bush told us it was to find the wmd’s the whole world thought existed before the invasion, to spread democracy in the heart of tyranny and terrorism, and to force the terrorists to fight our MILITARY there, instead of killing our CIVILIANS here. And that worked (0 attacks here in four years since 9/11). I however do agree that we need to pull out and stay out of muslim countries. They do not want democracy, and love killings, bombings, suicide, beheadings, and the such. I supported going there but it was a mistake, I’ll admit. The point still remains though, Sheehan may have lost a son, an be in pain, but she is a tiresome, Liberal hack, that is asking a tiresome rhetorical question. She is approaching things in the wrong way. It wasn’t based on Bush’s lies, it was simply a mistake to go. Period. Her political hackery is sickening, and it DOES dishonor her son in my opinion, to use his death for her political agenda.
Posted by: David Stone at August 19, 2005 03:04 PMFIRST OF ALL MY HEART GOES OUT TO CINDY SHEEHAN AND FOR THE LOSS SHE HAS SUFFERED. I WISH I COULD SAY TO HER THAT HER SON DID NOT DIE IN VAIN. I HOPE WHAT I WILL DISCLOSE WILL OPEN A FEW EYES.. GEORGE BUSH POTRAYS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN IRAQ AS “ESTABLISHING FREEDOM” AND “FIGHTING TERRORISM” WHAT IS ACTUALL HAPPENING IN IRAQ IS THIS, WHEN BUSH INVADED IRAQ HE INSTRUCTED THE CIA TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO TAKE THE OIL FROM IRAQ IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT WOULD BE A COMPLETELY COVERT AND CONCEALED OPERATION. THE CIA NOW HAS OIL TANKERS FLYING 3RD WORLD FLAGS ENTERING A SPECIAL DOCK IN THE PORT OF MINA BAKR IN IRAQ, WHERE THEY ARE FILLED TO CAPACITY. TO THE WORD THIS APPEARS TO BE NORMAL AND APPROVED OIL BUSINESS, BUT THE TANKERS DO NOT GO BACK TO THE THIRD WORLD, THEY GO TO THE PORT OF GALVESTON TEXAS TO BE DISPERSED (FOR WHAT PURPOSE?) STEAL THE OIL FROM IRAQ TO BUILD UP OUR OIL RESERVES? IN ACTUALITY IT IS STORED IN UNDERGROUND FACILITES AND SOLD ON THE AMERICAN NOW HIGH PRICED MARKET NEAR $3:00 A GALLON. MR BUSH IS USING AMERICAN TROOPS TO MAINTAIN SOME ASSEMBLANCE OF ORDER IN IRAQ NOT TO FIGHT TERRORISM,BUT TO BE A PRIVATE SECURITY FORCE WHILE THE CIA DOES ITS BUSINESS. DOES MR. BUSH REALLY WANT TO FIGHT TERRORISM? ( THE CIA KNOWS EXACTLEY WHERE BIN LADIN IS. THERY WERE INFORMED BY ISRAELI INTELLEGENCE (THE MOSSAD) 2 YEARS AGO AND THE CIA AND THE MOSSAD TRACK HIS EVERY MOVE. BUT THEN, WHY HAS HE NOT BEEN CAPTURED OR ASSASSINTATED? THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS OBVIOUS. I FEAR THAT MANY MORE PARENTS WILL LOSE THEIR CHILDREN IN IRAQ JUST SO GEORGE BUSH CAN SECURE A WEALTH THAT NO ONCE CAN IMAGINE. THIS SO CALLED WAR AGAINST TERRORISM MUST BE STOPPED NOW.
MARY JANE KISER
MANAGER MAVERICK SHELL GAS STATION
ORLANDO FLORIDA
