Third Party & Independents: Archives

Choose this day who you will support. As for me and my house we will support Gary Qualls.

Should it come down to a decision of only supporting one? Would not the best solution be to see what common ground both share and work from there?

It appears since respect of the names of those they lost is one both have couldn’t at least that be agreed upon?

Hi All:

IMHO
Isn’t it a shame that it has all boiled down to this? When will this madness stop?

Just Passing Gas

As Always,
Wayne

I stand behind Gary Qualls and the title MSNBC chose for their headline. Cindy Sheehan’s demands have never seemed the least bit rational to me, which has been my problem with her from the start. As far as I’ve seen Gary Qualls demands are simple and rational. He demands that Cindy’s supporters not use his son’s name for a cause his son would not support. He demands that Cindy debate him on the issues. Instead, Cindy’s side has decided to “stay the course” and demand she receive another meeting with the President and nothing less.

Wayne,

The madness will likely stop in 2008, thats when you’ll see a 60 vote “R” majority in the senate.

They both have rights to say their piece under the 1st Amendment. All soldier’s names who have died are public record. 1st Amemndment protects speaking of policy using public records.

People do have a choice as to how they respond to things that bother them. They can choose to respond lawfully, or unlawfully. They can choose to be offended by the lawful actions of others, or choose not to be. All parties in this article are free to choose, and that is their common ground whether they choose to recognize it, celebrate it, or curse it, or not.

If they choose to be offended by each other then their objection is as much with freedom as with what others lawfully do. If they choose to litigate over what others with a different view lawfully do, then they reveal their fundamental lack of appreciation for liberty and freedom, and they seek to diminish what their children died for. Freedom under the rule of law.

I guess the biggest problem I have with this whole affair is that Cindy Sheehan is asking her questions of the wrong person. She wants to ask President Bush what cause her son died for. Bush can’t answer that, he can only guess.

The person who could answer that question is Casey Sheehan and he’s dead. He’s the one who knows why he chose to be a soldier, why he was willing to fight and eventually die. It was his decision and he decided to fight. Why? Cindy should have asked her son when she had the chance. Cindy should know the answer to the question! Bush can’t determine why her son fought and died, that was Casey’s decision and Casey is the only one who can determine what cause he died for.

I have a very close friend working her way through Basic Training right now. She has sacrificed her time with her son. She has sacrificed her freedom to do as she pleases. She may yet sacrifice her very life. And I know why she’s doing it! She wants to protect her son and make this world a better place. She wants to provide for him in a way that her near-minimum wage jobs just couldn’t do. She wants direction and order in her life. These are her reasons. This is why she’s willing to fight and die as a soldier.

Bush doesn’t know these reasons, they’re personal to my friend. I know, because I’ve talked to her, I’ve asked her, all because I love her and want to know her for who she is, not who I want her to be. The fact that Sheehan doesn’t know why her son died is something I find very disturbing and down-right wrong.

As for the headline, calling one protest “patriotic” is an implication that the other is not. It is wrong, but their right to say that.

Stephanie:

I have watched your posts in here. I really don’t believe that you don’t know what and why Cindy is protesting. Your post above implies that you don’t, but I just don’t believe it. I think you’re just trying to twist it to put it in a light that makes her look stupid and unloving. Not very nice, but not unexpected.

Stephanie -

I feel like your reasoning completely absolves the president of the one responsibility that is ultimately at the core of the presidencency.

Every soldier who enlists is signing up for a job that he or she knows may kill them. Very few other jobs ask for the level of commitment that being a professional soldier does.

If the responsibility of the soldier is to do what is asked of them, always, without question, than how serious is the responsibility of those who are in charge of their wellbeing?

While the reason for enlistment must be different for every solider, the reason for their being put into harms way lays at the foot of only one man. It is his responsibility, his fault, his choice. Like leaders in all walks of life, when everything goes right, he hands the credit to the soldier, and when everything goes wrong, he takes all the blame. And in a way the President is also enlisted. No one makes someone become president; it�s a choice every candidate makes, knowing what the job entails. And if you are elected you are given control of, and responsibility for one of this nations most treasured resources: A group of men and women willing to do whatever you ask of them, wherever you ask them, whenever you ask them to do it. So while we can debate the words Cindy Sheehan uses in her question to the president, she does have the right to know why her son was there.

Rather than turn this into another one of the “why I support or do not support” Cindy Sheehan threads, the reality is this question has been asked and answered. The problem is Cindy Sheehan does not accept what has been stated as a reasonable answer.

Some of the parents have accepted the reasons, such as Gary Qualls. So it is not a matter of has an answer been given this is a basic difference of opinion on agreement or disagreement with the war in Iraq.

The main point here is does Gary Qualls deserve the same support and attention as Cindy Sheehan and why if Cindy Sheehan supporters demand their children’s names not be used Gary Qualls request that his son’s name not be used for anti-war protests was not met. Is his demand his son’s name not be used unreasonable? If both names are a matter of public record than neither side has the right to make that an issue.

Further the deeper issue of look where this has taken us in our need to have the “right” spokesperson out there, it is parent against parent, in some cases family against family, while it may give us all some headlines to debate this is causing more pain and division than helping to solve anything.

womanmarine,

Your comments make me smile, really they do. You see, Cindy Sheehan said many times when this all started that she demands the President meet with her so she can ask him what cause her son died for. While I grant that the angle has changed as more and more of liberal spin machines have gotten their hands on her, her original message was simple.

You say, “I really don’t believe that you don’t know what and why Cindy is protesting.”

The thing is, I still remember what Cindy was protesting and am addressing that. I don’t give a damn what type of spin is put on it. The message that came from her own mouth in her own words is what I care about, not the glossy cover that’s being presented now.

Lisa Renee,

“The main point here is does Gary Qualls deserve the same support and attention as Cindy Sheehan…”

I’d bet that if he doesn’t we’re going to have more threads about whether the “liberal media” exists or not.

“…why if Cindy Sheehan supporters demand their children’s names not be used [by the President] Gary Qualls request that his son’s name not be used for anti-war protests was not met.”

And that’s what I’d really like answered. All I’ve gotten when I bring up that question is “the name is public record and Cindy has Freedom of Speech.” Casey gave his permission to the US Government; Louis did not give his permission to Sheehan & company. I think there is a significant difference there. For those who don’t, please explain why?

This entire using names thing is getting crazy. While someone said that the public use of names is protected under the 1st amendment, I suggest that maybe in the Cindy issue that is not the case.

For example, it is not a right granted under the first amendment to yell “FIRE” in a movie theater where there is no fire. There is an issue of INTENT.

Cindy IMO is attempting to use the Qualls name to support a point that Qualls and his supporters do not believe in. I would suggest that the movie theater analagy may extend to this issue.

Justin - You make an excellent point to which Stephanie neglected to repsond. While every single soldier, airman, marine, and sailor in our armed forces knows fully that they have a good chance of dying in their job (which I know as an Army ROTC cadet), I would guess that most of them would only enlist on the notion that their commander in chief would make the absolute best decision on the absolute best intelligence and for the absolute best reasons to use their lives in a war. However, George W. Bush did not make such a decision. Every initial reason that was given, besides spreading democracy (maybe), have been proven null. He used faulty intelligence that his administration may have even altered to their purpose. With such a horrible decision being made by the most powerful person in a soldier’s life, I believe that a parent has every reason to ask the commander in chief why he felt that this war was worth their child’s life and those of more than a thousand more. As a ROTC cadet, I plan on joining the Army to protect my country, to help pay for my college education, and to gain valuable skills for my future. However, that does not mean that I support every military endeavor started by a future commander in chief, and if I die in a war that was perhaps unjust or irresponsibly started, I believe that my parents would have the right to ask the commander in chief what the noble cause was for my death.

In response to the question of the legality of the use of the names, Cindy Sheehan’s use of Qualls’ name in her protest is absolutely protected.
Stephanie: “Casey gave his permission to the US Government; Louis did not give his permission to Sheehan & company. I think there is a significant difference there. For those who don’t, please explain why?” - If 1000 of the soldiers that have died so far were in full support of the war and believed that their death was worth giving for the benefit of the country, does that mean that we should take those 1000 names off the list of those who have died in the war? Likewise, if someone is fed propaganda so that they will die for an unjust cause, and they do in fact die with the belief that they died for a just cause, does that mean that we cannot use that death as evidence against the spreader of that proganda? Cindy Sheehan has every right to display every single name of those who died in the war, regardless of the opinions of each of the dead. Her point here is to attach the administration’s use of these lives as comodities or war supplies. Her point is to protest the administration’s unlawful distortion of intelligence to support a cause that has cost nearly 2000 American lives.

Perhaps I’m confused, but I think that the issue boils down to whether or not our troops should be placed “in harm’s way” merely to protect our democracy or to depose tyrants and install democracies throughout the world.

IMO, both scenarios are valid exercises of military force. Tyranny cannot be condoned tacitly by ennui. As Edmund Burke said,

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

The American kids who’ve died in Iraq did so confronting the evil of Saddam’s dictatorship, regardless of who may or may not be “using” their ultimate sacrifice to advance a domestic political agenda.

The tragedy of our presence in Iraq lies not the elimination of a malignant and evil dictatorship; it resides within our duplicitous government by fabricating fictitious reasons for doing so.

Chuck,
I agree with your point in general, with a couple of major additions. The use of our military should not be used to depose tyrants when it will decrease our own security or cause significant harm to the United States. In other words, although both reasons may be justifiable, they are not equally important. Also, the mere fact that there is a totalitarian regime does not mean that we are justified in invading and overthrowing the government. I can only see the second reason for war being justified when there are massive human rights violations. I would also say that it is probably futile to try to install democracy without the driving force being the people who will make up said democracy—a supporting role, much as the French were during our own revolution.

Well, the 2000 dead mark is coming soon…

Feels strange watching it come…

That’s about 1,000 dead every year…

Pentagon estimates we will stay in Iraq for 4 years minimum…

I would support a movement to declare a “Cindy Sheehan Day”. I might even buy in to a National Holiday.

David R. Remer:

All soldier’s names who have died are public record. 1st Amemndment protects speaking of policy using public records.

This is true if it is simple reporting of the fact that the individual died. I think the arguement is that, by Cindy using the name, it shows de facto support for her cause. Legally, I think he has a valid grievance if he can show the alleged invalid agreement with her cause. I think the ignoring of the father’s request is heartless, regardless of the legal ramifications. If Quall’s name is continued to be used, Sheehan’s position on the “moral high ground” will be depleted.

Now, this last bit is just my opinion. To use a fallen soldier’s name in support of a cause against the wishes of the parents is deplorable. She should be ashamed of herself for doing it just as Bush should be ashamed of himself if he or his spin machine use fallen soldiers names in the same way.

Sheehan’s refusal to delete Qualls name from her gravemarker display is as inconsiderate as Bush’s refusal to talk to her. Somewhere in the Constitution there is the freedom that entitles an individual not to speak.

BTW has anybody heard if the cookout at Cindy’s new compound in Crawford was successful?

Well, at least we’ve got you guys to concede that Sheehan is “on the moral high ground” and that Bush’s refusal to speak to her was “inconsiderate”. Progress.

Burt:

If by “you guys” you mean Chi Chi, then I’d agree with you. To extrapolate one person’s comment to an entire group of people wouldn’t necessarily be correct, unless of course the memo that Chi Chi speaks for the entire group simply hasn’t been distributed yet. :)

Speaking for myself only, I would fight to the death for Cindy Sheehan’s right to speak. I would also state unequivocally that I am not in support of her actions, especially the more her rhetoric sinks into angry and disrespectful comments. (“George, it has been seven months today since your reckless and wanton foreign policies killed my son, my big boy, my hero, my best-friend: Casey. It has been seven months since your ignorant and arrogant lack of planning for the peace murdered my oldest child. It has been two days since your dishonest campaign stole another election…but you all were way more subtle this time than in 2000, weren’t you?” (open letter by Cindy Sheehan to President G.W. Bush)
I recognize her grief, and sympathize over her loss, just as I sympathize with any of the other parents who agree or disagree with her. No more, no less.

Politically, her tactic is smart. Its putting Bush on the defensive, since if he talks to her now, he loses, and if he doesnt talk to her now, he’s heartless. Not a lot of win for him there, which is of course what she wants. I don’t think she wants the conversation with him anymore, but rather wants the platform for her political statements. Even if Bush speaks with her, I think the anti-war movement will use any comments from their conversation to bash Bush further, which makes speaking to her even less likely.

Please note, Burt, that I’ve been respectful of Ms Sheehan, that I have not attacked her at all, but that I have stated my areas of disagreement with her actions. I accept that some out there will still claim I’m attacking her, but that’s just a tactic used to try to silence people.

Joe,

Yes, I was referencing Chi Chi and Steve Smith. I didn’t mean to imply all on the right.

I’m happy to hear your comments. I disagree with those who attack her using words like “anti-semetic”, but your comments are completely legitimate.

But can we agree that it is the right who attempts to use war and 9/11 to political ends far more than the left?

Lisa Renee:
“Should we expect numerous pro-Gary articles”

Well, isn’t yours the first?

“or anti-Gary articles all over the blogosphere including here on Watch Blog?”

I believe people on the left usually despise such low down dirty tactics. I also think that most people on left want to make sure that Mr. Quall and every other American will always be allowed to exercise their First Amendment Right of free speech.

“Will people rush to donate over a hundred thousand dollars to help his quest?”

No need. There’s Fox News.

“Will some group on the right jump forward to provide Gary with a Public Relations firm to help him?”

Same answer as above.

“Since he’s a father will he not create the same feelings of sympathy?”

Of course.

“Is his loss somehow less important than Cindy’s loss?”

No. But is her message, or her right to deliver it to the American people, less important than his?
I think not.

Hiya Steve Smith:
How are you? Doing well I hope.

I would support a movement to declare a “Cindy Sheehan Day”. I might even buy in to a National Holiday.

Posted by: steve smith at August 22, 2005 09:33 AM

Since there are no Official Holidays in August, I propose 05 August(Same date every year, no exceptions or moving it to Monday or Friday.) That way we could celebrate not only “Cindy Sheehan Day”, we would also be Honoring Australia’s “Picnic Day” in the process. The only catch to this holiday is that not everyone will be allowed to celebrate. Why not you ask, Well we already have too many holidays as it is (Did you know that already not every full-time employee in this country gets to celebrate Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day. Hell, I know Veteran’s that Don’t get To celebrate Veterans Day Unless it falls on a Saturday or Sunday.) No, How do we Honor the Vet’s of This Country? We hold a sale at the local wal-mart or Discount Store. Glad my 20 years of service meant so much to you, Thank you very much america.

Just passing Gas,

As Always,
Wayne

Burt:

I in no way or at any time stated she does not have the right to say what she wants to. I agree completely with JBOD that I would fight to keep that right. I also agree with JBOD that I disagree with her position. I disagree with the use of unwilling participants in her PR grab.

I did state that I disagreed with David R. Remer’s assessment of the legal perameters of the use of the soldier’s name, even though his father asked for its removal. Beyond the legal bits, I stated:

Now, this last bit is just my opinion. To use a fallen soldier’s name in support of a cause against the wishes of the parents is deplorable. She should be ashamed of herself for doing it just as Bush should be ashamed of himself if he or his spin machine use fallen soldiers names in the same way.

I was speaking for no one but myself. I did not say Bush’s refusal to speak with her was inconsiderate, nor did I infer that. I agree with JBOD that it is a lose/lose situation for Bush. He has no motivation to speak with her further.

It is right that she is able to speak her mind. It is wrong for her to use other’s names as support, even though they do not agree with her. When I used the term “moral high ground”, I specifically put it in quotes to emphasize her self-placed position there. I attribute no moral high ground to anyone in this situation, except Quall’s father. If I did not convey that properly, I appologize.

Adrienne, if the statement “The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute,” is to be taken seriously as some have recommended even here than it should extend to those parents who have lost adult children that support the war.

I think we realize that is not the case. The impression given is that it only matters if you are against the war. That is why parents like Gary Qualls and others have spoken out.

I personally cannot support Cindy Sheehan except at the most basic level of supporting her right to protest.

What could have been a very effective method of raising support against the war in those who are more mainstream has changed into being about the Bush twins, about Israel and her comments from Kos today:

We as mothers need to stop buying into the load of misogynistic crap that our children need our constant presence in their lives so they can thrive and grow. What we need as families is strong support systems that allow each family member to grow and achieve his/her full potential as human beings. What we as Moms need to stop doing is giving our children to the military industrial war complex to be used as human cluster bombs: to kill innocent civilians and perhaps to die enriching and feeding the gluttonous war machine.

It is up to us Moms to make sure our children are whole and safe. We can start doing this by always opposing the wars that bury our kids. So what I am saying to the people who want me to go home and take care of my kids: I AM taking care of my kids, and yours too.

I did not oppose Afghanistan, I did not oppose Iraq though I agree after Shock and Awe it was badly handled creating some of the very issues that are keeping us still there in the position we currently face.

Even after Iraq there are going to be situations where US troops are going to be placed in harm’s way. While a total peace no war concept is nice to dream about the reality is that is not possible. Unless Cindy Sheehan and her supporters can find a way to get Bin Laden and those like him to support her peace movement, I don’t see her demands as possible.

Her statements will keep the support of those who have always been anti-war anti-government, but they are not going to encourage those who are not to join her. I see this as an opportunity lost and partially due to her own comments and the way they can be easily passed off as being from the extreme.

I’d love my friends who are in Iraq to be able to come home. However doing so before Iraq is stable doesn’t seem to be a solution, all that will do is guarantee it will be someone else’s family or friend going in the future when Iraq folds into civil war. Can we even make Iraq stable is a question that is becoming one that should be the main one asked, in my opinion anyway.

I’d love my friends who are in Iraq to be able to come home. However doing so before Iraq is stable doesn’t seem to be a solution, all that will do is guarantee it will be someone else’s family or friend going in the future when Iraq folds into civil war. Can we even make Iraq stable is a question that is becoming one that should be the main one asked, in my opinion anyway.

So now we get into a pattern of interesting behavior. Bush gets himself into an enormous mess, a lose/lose situation. And conservatives scream that liberals don’t have any good ideas for getting us out of these jams. What wonderful logic.

I don’t think either side has a solution Burt, hence why we are where we are at right now.

Not that I often believe in John Kerry but his statements about no plan to win the war appear to be true.

Republicans and Democrats don’t even agree on this, do we need more troops? Some say yes, some say no.

Some prefer to focus on issues of why the reasons for the war were given being false, interesting to discuss and I’ve done that as well at times, but it really doesn’t change what is happening right now.

There is no clear focus, and that is not just the fault of Bush but Congress as well.

Wayne,

Good to hear from you. I am doing OK, how about you?

I think August 5 is a great day for Cindy Sheehan Day. What a great bonus that it would be the same day as Australias “Picnic Day”.

As this proposal begins to evolve you and I can start to put together our thoughts on events that can be held Nationwide to celebrate. The Australia connection may allow us to use Foster’s Beer and “Blooming Onions” as the logo’s for the campaign. Then just to make sure everyone understands the tie in between Cindy Sheehan day and free speech we can put a picture of a burning American Flag on the napkins.

Chi Chi, If Sheehan were saying others sons supported her point of view, there might be a problem since that is a statement of fact that could be proved untrue.

But to simply cite a soldier’s name as having died as a result of American Government policy decisions led by the President, is an undisputable truth. There is no legal basis for condemning this use of a soldier’s name. It is a public record fact they were a soldier, they are dead as reported by the government, and the government elected to engage in that war.

Speaking truth under these circumstances is not illegal, and cannot be halted without violation of Sheehan’s 1st Amendment rights, no matter how other parents feel about Sheehan’s citing the name of the dead in the Iraq War.

Lisa Renee:
“I personally cannot support Cindy Sheehan except at the most basic level of supporting her right to protest.”

I don’t think anyone on the left is trying to make others agree with her viewpoint against their will. All that is really matters is that she and every other American who wants to has the right to protest.

“I’d love my friends who are in Iraq to be able to come home. However doing so before Iraq is stable doesn’t seem to be a solution, all that will do is guarantee it will be someone else’s family or friend going in the future when Iraq folds into civil war. Can we even make Iraq stable is a question that is becoming one that should be the main one asked, in my opinion anyway.”

Sorry Lisa, I’m afraid I have to agree with Burt’s answer to this same quote of yours.

“There is no clear focus, and that is not just the fault of Bush but Congress as well.”

Yes, and since Congress is now controlled by the Republican’s, it appears as though the right has no real answer to the more troops/exit strategy question — and the Dem’s have no way of currently affecting that situation. Maybe this will change in the ‘06 election — or perhaps it will happen sooner if more and more people are convinced that Cindy Sheehan’s view is actually the correct one.

David:

I’m not sure I understand all the legalese. Of course, Sheehan is not breaking any legal laws if she continues to use Qualls’ name.

Isn’t she doing the same thing that she is complaining that Bush is doing—using the name of a soldier or soldiers to further a cause? Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

I’d hope that she doesn’t continue using any soldier’s name if there is an indication that it causes someone a problem, such as the parents. Since of course the soldier is not there to answer for him/herself, it is left to the parent to object, if they so choose.

We don’t know what Casey Sheehan would say about his mom’s actions. We dont know what Casey Sheehan felt about the war, other than that he re-enlisted. His mother has taken up what she considers to be “his” fight. She should allow Gary Qualls to do the same for his son.

I’m always more in favor of doing the right thing than doing the technically legal thing. There are many wrong things that are legal.

David R. Remer:

But to simply cite a soldier’s name as having died as a result of American Government policy decisions led by the President, is an undisputable truth. There is no legal basis for condemning this use of a soldier’s name. It is a public record fact they were a soldier, they are dead as reported by the government, and the government elected to engage in that war.

I don’t want to split hairs, but…If it were just a matter of Sheehan stating the name and fact of death, I would agree. Having on display a cross bearing the name of a dead soldier in the background during a rant about the president and his policies (whether or not you agree with them) and stating we need to pull out to spare the needless deaths of more soldiers like these borders on de facto approval which was not given. I think a sharp attorney could make a good case. It may not hold up, but it would be an interesting decision—does the 1st amendment right of Sheehan trump the privacy rights of the soldier’s family?

I’d love to see the argument made—not to shut her up, let her shout from the mountaintops, as that is her right. I would like to see the resulting decision and reasoning. Nothing personal David, but I don’t think it is as cut and dry legally or morally as you may say.

Since he’s a father will he not create the same feelings of sympathy?

Most likey not.

Is his loss somehow less important than Cindy’s loss?

NO! A father grieves for a lost child as much as a mother does. Just because he’s the father doesn’t mean he loves his children any less than the mother.

The way I see it if Cindy Sheehan wants people to respect her, then she should respect Gary Qualls and not use his son’s name.

Stephanie
“…why if Cindy Sheehan supporters demand their children’s names not be used [by the President] Gary Qualls request that his son’s name not be used for anti-war protests was not met.”

And that’s what I’d really like answered.

Good question! I reckon it’s because all they care about is their own personal feelings and could give less of a damn about the feelings of other parents who’ve lost children over there.

steve smith
I would support a movement to declare a “Cindy Sheehan Day”. I might even buy in to a National Holiday.

Why should she deserve this anymore than any other parent that’s had children killed in that war?

Adrienne, some Democrats supported and voted for the war in Iraq and still do. I realize many try to make this a “Republican” war, but as an Independent I have to say without Democrat support it would not have happened.

The Democratic minority has ways they can deal with issues if they truly were united in a plan as well.

I don’t see the goal as merely replacing Republicans with Democrats one I can get excited about.

Lisa Renee:
“Adrienne, some Democrats supported and voted for the war in Iraq and still do. I realize many try to make this a “Republican” war, but as an Independent I have to say without Democrat support it would not have happened.”

You’re right, the Democrats and the Republican’s in Congress didn’t try to keep us out of Iraq before this war — but many of them have claimed that was because the president didn’t tell them the truth prior to the war. Many now think that going was an enormous mistake, yet now that we’re there, most realize that it is going to take Republican’s breaking ranks against this administration to get us out — and now this is finally happening. Chuck Hagel (perhaps because he’s going to run for president?) said this past weekend on ABC’s “This Week” show that:
“We should start figuring out how we get out of there. But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.”

He also said that the Bush administration of ”staying the course’ is not a good policy:
“By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we’re not winning,’

Hagel (like many people here in Watchblog still are, or were) was previously advocating sending many more American troops to Iraq but now feels that is no longer an option:

“We’re past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have.”
“What I think the White House does not yet understand � and some of my colleagues � the dam has broke on this policy. The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together.”

As for the plan to have 100,000 Americans in Iraq for four more years as the Bush administration just announced, Hagel proclaimed it as:
“Folly.”
“I don’t know where he’s going to get these troops. There won’t be any National Guard left … no Army Reserve left … there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years.”
“It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won’t be four years. We need to be out.”

I agree with Chuck Hagel, and with Cindy Sheehan.
Bring our troops home now!

Many are still advocating the more troops solution, such as John Kerry. Others mention in passing soundbites there is no plan but don’t seem to have any ideas of a plan of their own.

Given that Republicans and Democrats agreed to this war, wouldn’t the logical solution be if they really wanted a plan to create one?

I’d admire them alot more if they took responsibility for the decision and made some actual contributions to creating a way out.

The division on how to end this exists in both parites, that’s where I would suggest they concentrate on if they really wanted this to end.

The impression I have is that the real goal is to make the GOP lose seats not to work together to develop a plan to end the war in Iraq. So I have a hard time taking much of what is said as genuine since the real goal isn’t necessarily winning the war in Iraq or getting troops home but getting the Democrats to have a majority again or as close to it as they can get.

One of the many reasons I don’t support this current two party system. Too many times it becomes more about how can we use this to help our party before how can we help all Americans.

Chi Chi said: “does the 1st amendment right of Sheehan trump the privacy rights of the soldier’s family?”

The family has no privacy rights regarding the name and statistic of their son dying in a war. Their son signed all kinds of paperwork, allowing the government to use his name as hero, dead or alive. The family’s preferences cannot negate that legal contract between their son and the government. The government made him a public statistic with his consent upon signing up for the military. The family would have no legal standing.

Now if Sheehan tried to attribute to their son some beliefs or actions which are not true, then lible or slander laws would kick in. But simply having his name on a temporary memorial cross in a demonstration has no legal standing under current law that I am aware of. If it has legal standing, then we have become more Orwellian than I feared.

Justin & ryan,

“You make an excellent point to which Stephanie neglected to repsond.”

I missed his post, and for that I apologize.

Justin said: “If the responsibility of the soldier is to do what is asked of them, always, without question, than how serious is the responsibility of those who are in charge of their wellbeing?”

Very serious. If you’re asking me if I think Bush has messed up big time, then my answer is yes. However, Bush has messed things up for the Iraqi people a whole lot more than he has messed things up for us (even Sheehan), and has a responsibility to them, too. If he abandons them to the fate which his has created (with the help of the terrorists), then, IMO, he really is a lost case. The only way left, again IMO, for him to “fix” his mistakes, is to correct his war efforts so that we win this war. While that will not bring Casey Sheehan or any of the other soldiers who have died on Bush’s watch back, it would accomplish something worth a soldier’s life…real democracy, real safety, real wellness to Iraq. Anything short of that and America is going to be in much worse shape than most people figure. By pulling out now, we’d doom ourselves to another war with Iraq sometime in the future.

Justin said: “…she does have the right to know why her son was there.”

If I believed that was why she was doing this, then fine, but I don’t. I’ve read too much of what she’s written. Her protest against Bush started before her son’s death. She’s using her son’s death as a political soap box to get heard, and I find that disgusting. Therefore, I do not support Cindy Sheehan.

ryan said: “In response to the question of the legality of the use of the names…”

I don’t care about the legality. The way Sheehan is using those names (assuming it is she and not just her supporters) is immoral and hypocritical. That is my point. Legal…sure, but that doesn’t make it right.

Chuck,

“The tragedy of our presence in Iraq lies not the elimination of a malignant and evil dictatorship; it resides within our duplicitous government by fabricating fictitious reasons for doing so.”

I would add that part of the tragedy is also the poor way this war has been directed. With all that we have at our disposal, we should be much further along towards success than we are.

You know, as long as we’re on the topics of legality and morality:

Those crosses cost people money to have made with the names of the dead on them. They weren’t free. Yet we’ve had reports of people coming in and simply taking crosses with their relatives names on them, including Gary Quails. That’s simply theft.

Adrienne,

“All that is really matters is that she and every other American who wants to has the right to protest.”

And we all have the right to protest against her protest. Your point?

“And we all have the right to protest against her protest.”

Uh, yes, that’s exactly what I said…

“Your point?”

First Amendment Rights, G-o-o-d. Crushing free speech, B-a-d.

Sure, arrest the parents for taking a cross, that might be the next idea of how to get publicity when things start to slow down at Camp Crawford.

Then, those at Fort Qualls can start displaying crosses, and the protestors and counter protestors can focus on spending all day removing crosses back and forth with a few arrests arranged for the camera as well, though I’d say having seen the crosses it would have to be considered petty theft since the value is probably under ten dollars.

Here’s a better idea that would help Cindy raise more funds, charge the parents of those who don’t want their family name used.

I must have missed who stated she did not have the right to protest.

That appears to be one of the only points most of us do agree on.

Adrienne,

“First Amendment Rights, G-o-o-d. Crushing free speech, B-a-d.”

By making this statement you imply somebody is “crushing free speech.” I see no evidence of that. Do you?

“That is my point. Legal…sure, but that doesn’t make it right.”

According to you. That is why opinions ususally are not converted to law with any facility. So many folk’s opinions if passed into law, would deprive so many others of their right to their opinion. That’s just the funny thing about opinions, don’t ya know?

Lisa:

From where I stand, it seems like the Right (especially good old Larry Northern) are doing quite enough to bring publicity to the Sheehan camp already.

Stephanie:

How about Larry Northern, the guy who drove over 500 of the crosses at Camp Sheehan with his truck, dragging a pipe behind him by a chain to smash them up further? That seems like pretty literally crushing free speech to me.

Actually Northern brought them more publicity, so realistically while running down the crosses was a stupid move they got alot more media attention thanks to his bad behavior.

There is a difference between parents who do not want a name used as part of an anti-war protest and those like Northern who take things to far the wrong way.

Valid point about opinions David, one of the very reasons this site is so popular because that’s what most of us are expressing.

We all decide individually what we support, and most of us hopefully seek out places where we can separate the bias from the fact to make an informed opinion.

One of the main reasons I’m happy to be here as I feel places like this offer us all the chance to discuss differing opinions with our reasoning or facts behind them to become more informed.

Stephanie:
“By making this statement you imply somebody is “crushing free speech.” I see no evidence of that.”

:^) Stephanie, only because you took my exchange with Lisa out of context have we reached this absurd level of misunderstanding.

This is how it went:
Lisa:
“The impression given is that it only matters if you are against the war. That is why parents like Gary Qualls and others have spoken out.
I personally cannot support Cindy Sheehan except at the most basic level of supporting her right to protest.”

Then I responded with:
“I don’t think anyone on the left is trying to make others agree with her viewpoint against their will. All that is really matters is that she and every other American who wants to has the right to protest.”

See, I was saying that either point is valid, and anyone has the right to say what they wish, because it’s all free speech. I don’t think the founders would have made free speech part of the first amendment because they assumed that all American’s were going to agree all the time.

But you came back with:
“And we all have the right to protest against her protest. Your point?”

Which was silly, because what I’d already said was that of course parents like Mr. Quall have the right to hold a different view.

Jarin:
“How about Larry Northern, the guy who drove over 500 of the crosses at Camp Sheehan with his truck, dragging a pipe behind him by a chain to smash them up further? That seems like pretty literally crushing free speech to me.”

:^) That’s exactly I was thinking when I wrote that!
That, in combination with the totally hilarious scene in “Young Frankenstein” where Peter Boyle (The Monster) has dinner at Gene Hackman’s house…

Thanks for the clarification Adrienne because I was confused on that as well.

I’d also add that Northern is going to face charges for destroying the crosses, as Jarin would like to see happen to parents who remove crosses.

Northern did not stop anyone from speaking, he destroyed property. I don’t see parents or other family members requesting their family name not be used as part of an anti or pro war protest being stopping anyone’s ability to have free speech. All they are asking is to not be associated with a certain cause.

As I understand it, everyone involved in this mess is constitutionally protected….Sheehan, Qualls, and President Bush. Because freedom OF speech does not trump freedom of not wanting to speak!

So let’s face it…what we are discussing is a moral stance!
That being the case, one would think that Sheehan would “morally” not want to hurt another grieving parent!
Quit hiding behind legalities…..what is the problem w/ removing the Quall’s childs name? Is she afraid that it will lead to the removal of a lot of names? If so that would lead me to believe that she is not so sure of her cause!

I am surprised it took quite this long but we have had our first confrontation between a group of pro-Bush war supporters and the Cindy Sheehan demonstrators.

The pro-Bush supporters cannot be criticized since they are exercising their 1st amendment rights in the same way as Sheehan’s group. This first confrontation took place in California, near or in Cindy’s home town.

The pro-Bush group claims to be organizing a trip to Crawford for a peaceful demonstration.

It is only a matter of time until two groups each exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech in support of a principle they each fervently believe in will have an altercation that leads to bloodshed and/or the arrest of a few “well intentioned” demonstrators.

Lisa said: “I’d also add that Northern is going to face charges for destroying the crosses, as Jarin would like to see happen to parents who remove crosses.”

Northern is destroying property and thus should be punished. My question for you, Jarin, is: Back during the election when people from both sides were pulling up signs in other people’s yard, were you interested in pursuing them all as the criminals they were?

Adrienne,

Generalized statements have been used by both sides to insinuate wrong-doing. In defense of that insinuation the example given is one man, acting on his own behalf, who has been arrested. So, obviously, if Northern is your evidence, his arrest indicates that the “crushing of free speech” isn’t being tolerated. So, I ask again, what evidence do you have that supports the implications you made?

“If the responsibility of the soldier is to do what is asked of them, always, without question”

Without question? Totally wrong on that one. A soldier must follow the LAWFULL orders of those over him and must question all UNLAWFULL orders.
Soldiers are not mindless drones and have not been brainwashed.
Respect of the dead soldiers goes without saying, its the respect for the living soldiers that is severly lacking.

Stephanie:
“Generalized statements have been used by both sides to insinuate wrong-doing.”
“So, I ask again, what evidence do you have that supports the implications you made?”

The wrong doing that I see and cannot accept is that so many rightwing politicians and media people have been smearing and loudly attacking Mrs. Sheehan’s character and those of the other parents who are protesting outside of Crawford. It’s utter bullshit and the evidence of it has been there for all America to see ever since she began her protest.
And the reason it is utter bullshit is because Cindy Sheehan didn’t just raise a brave soldier who was killed in this war, she raised a Marine who was killed in this war. This fact alone should have made the president go give her a few minutes of his precious bike-riding time, and made everybody who is attacking her shut the hell up and let her protest against this war if she wants to.
No one else has to agree with the parents at Camp Casey, or sympathise with their loss, even though many other people do, including myself - but they should definitely quit smearing them and give them the respect that the parents of America’s war-dead rightfully deserve.
They might also try asking themselves if they could possibly imagine doing the very same thing that these parents are doing if they were standing in their shoes and believed that the president had lied to get their precious children to fight an illegal war of occupation — or that the noble cause of their deaths during this war was actually oil — or even as it now turns out, so that Iraq would end up with an Islamic Theocratic Republic rather than true Freedom and Democracy.

Maybe if she were more honest these smears wouldn’t happen. In her latest diary today she responds to Bush’s statement:

“On Sheehan, the grieving mother who has camped near his ranch since Aug. 6, the president said he strongly supports her right to protest. “She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it,” Bush said. “I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake,” he said. “I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States.”

This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn’t ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for. I am still waiting for one of the press corps to ask him that.

That is what she is saying today, however on August 5, 2005 when she announced she was going to Crawford this is what was listed on the front page of her Gold Star Families website (it has since been removed)

1) We want our loved ones’ sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation’s sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are?

2) We would like for him to explain this “noble cause” to us and ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm’s way, if the cause is so noble.

3) If George is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal.

This is not the first time she’s made a statement then later claimed she never said it. If she wants to be taken seriously I’d suggest she start being more honest. She made the demand to withdrawl troops, and now she is claiming Bush is creating smokescreens?

Lisa Renee,

Tremendous post regarding Cindy Sheehan’s confusion regarding statements made. Keep up the good work.

Cindy Sheehan would have more credibility if she had contacted the parents of all the dead soldiers who’s names she was going to use. In the hypothetical case where she was making a speech and said 1900 soldiers lost their lives in the war it would be credible if she was speaking for 1900.

If in fact 1000 of those names were used without approval of the parent (because she was using their names to emphasize a point) but, those 1000 actually did not agree with her point or cause, she would be mis-representing her position.

Moreover, it is theoretically possible that 50% or more disagree with her which then precludes credibility to her entire crusade.

Adrienne:

I really don’t think Cindy Sheehan is in this just to have a conversation with Bush. I think its more than that. Here’s the problem as I see (meaning this is my opinion):

Sheehan does not believe Iraq is a worthy or noble cause, therefore, Bush has no answer that will be suitable. Nothing he can say will convince her that her son’s death was for a noble and worthy cause. So the idea of convincing her is gone.

I believe that if Bush were to spend time with Sheehan, the anti-war left would use that against him. They would spout off the things that he said to her, or would encourage other parents to make the same request. Once you agree to the first request, its awfully hard to not agree to further requests. The outcome of further requests would be to keep the anti-war agenda on the headlinew, where the anti-war left wants it. It would be a publicity boon for them

Allow me to ask you this: What good would YOU expect to come from a Sheehan/Bush second meeting? Would you expect any more agreement between them?

Cindy Sheehan would have more credibility if she had contacted the parents of all the dead soldiers who’s names she was going to use. In the hypothetical case where she was making a speech and said 1900 soldiers lost their lives in the war it would be credible if she was speaking for 1900.

Yeah, because “clearly” stating the FACT that 1900 soldiers lost their lives automatically means that you’re speaking on behalf of those 1900 and requires the support of their families. Should we take all those names off the list of the dead, then? Are they miraculously alive because their families don’t agree with Sheehan? Are they not casualties of this war? Since when do FACTS get manipulated this easily, simply because family members don’t agree with the conclusions someone is drawing from those facts?

jbod:
“What good would YOU expect to come from a Sheehan/Bush second meeting?”

That’s a moot question, Joe. He hasn’t, and has said he won’t.

But of course, he should have. He would have looked like a mensch — like someone who cared about her loss, like someone who valued the fact that she managed to raise a son good enough and tough enough to become a United States Marine.
Instead, our president by avoiding speaking to her face to face appears to be an uncaring and arrogant asshole, who thinks that riding his bike and “getting on with his life” is somehow more important than a mother who sacrificed her son to his optional war.

“Would you expect any more agreement between them?”

In my view, people do not always have to actually agree with each other in order to reach an understanding over their respectively differing views. But accomplish that, they have to be brave enough to actually face each other, respectful enough to really listen to each other, and patient enough to take the time to try, even if they ultimately never reach the goal.
Sadly, I think too many people in this country are losing the ability to make such an attempt at understanding each other — and currently our president seems to personify the continual errosion of American civility.

womanmarine,
Thankyou for serving our country.

The more I see and read of Cindy Sheenan the more she looses credibility with me. I have never agreed with her and it doesn’t look like she can do or say anything that will change my mind.
I’ll STILL defend her right to her opinion and to voice it though. And I’ll ALSO defend the right of the pro Bush people that are countering her to voice their opinions. I haven’t heard much about them and don’t realy know if I could agree with them or not.
BUT BOTH SIDES HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS

Adrienne,

“And the reason it is utter bullshit is because Cindy Sheehan didn’t just raise a brave soldier who was killed in this war, she raised a Marine who was killed in this war.”

Yeah, and who’s the one with bullshit? How does Cindy Sheehan get credit for her son choosing to be a Marine? That’s absurd. She didn’t decide to be a Marine, Casey did. You give the woman way too much credit.

“…everybody who is attacking her shut the hell up and let her protest against this war if she wants to.”

That’s the thing you just don’t seem to get. We ARE letting her protest the war if she wants to, we’re just not agreeing with her and we don’t agree that the fact that her son was a Marine gives her any right to dictate policy to the President.

She put herself in the spotlight. She has to live with all the consequences of that, not just the ones she likes.

“…give them the respect that the parents of America’s war-dead rightfully deserve.”

Respect is earned. Since Cindy Sheehan doesn’t show respect, I don’t see how she can demand it. And I certainly have no inclination to give it.

“They might also try asking themselves if they could possibly imagine…”

Nope. I can’t imagine myself doing this at all. It’s disgraceful. It’s disrespectful. I would honor the choices of my children, whether I agreed with the choices of my President or not.

Adrienne,

“In my view, people do not always have to actually agree with each other in order to reach an understanding over their respectively differing views. But accomplish that, they have to be brave enough to actually face each other, respectful enough to really listen to each other, and patient enough to take the time to try, even if they ultimately never reach the goal. Sadly, I think too many people in this country are losing the ability to make such an attempt at understanding each other — and currently our president seems to personify the continual errosion of American civility.”

Cindy Sheehan is nowhere near showing that level of maturity. She shows no interest in listening to Bush. IMO, she just wants to be heard…by the media!

Perhaps if Sheehan hadn’t threatened the President before she asked to meet with him, then maybe there might have been some point to a meeting, but she had already made her antagonism quite clear and thus left no room for bravery, respect or patience to come into play.

Jarin,,I would support Cindy saying that “of the 1900 soldiers who have lost their lives in this war, myself and the parents of 1100 belive that” etc. etc. etc. “The families of the remaining 800 lost prefer to retain their anononimity for reasons of their own choosing”.

That way all the FACTS are in evidence and more people have respect for her campaign than presently do.

I’d go even farther, unless a parent has requested their family name not be used, they should continue as is.

However, once a family member makes the request it should be honored. That goes back to the basis of how this whole article started, had Gary Qualls request been honored and had he not had to goback and remove the cross with his son’s name on it more than once? He could have very well never decided to counter protest.

Another mother wrote several conservative boards stating that she could not fly from Washington to Crawford but had been told her son’s name was on a cross there. She asked them to please remove it for her and that she would provide whatever paperwork was necessary for them to make that request. There have been including her at least six others that have asked this of Cindy’s group. There could be more, but those are only ones I’ve confirmed.

Ron Brown, your comment above makes you one of my favored conservatives WB, no patronization intended. I too don’t accept Sheehan’s illogical and contradictory statements. But, I believe she has the right to speak, she has the right to voice her feelings, and she has the right to lend herself as focal point for those who are opposed continuance of our occupation of Iraq.

I think it is healthy for America that a pro-Iraq occupation group is also assembling to demonstrate. I think demonstrations in America are a very healthy sign that citizens are becoming more involved and informed, and willing to take an active role in governance of our nation.

And I think having demonstrations on both sides, squashes the stupidity of one side or the other saying demonstrations are UnAmerican, traitorous or unpatriotic.

David,

I don’t think anyone is saying demonstrations are UnAmerican, traitorous or unpatriotic…

Some people are saying that about Sheehan’s message, and that’s their right. But I’ve heard nobody say that about demonstrations in general.

Jarin,,I would support Cindy saying that “of the 1900 soldiers who have lost their lives in this war, myself and the parents of 1100 belive that” etc. etc. etc. “The families of the remaining 800 lost prefer to retain their anononimity for reasons of their own choosing”.

That way all the FACTS are in evidence and more people have respect for her campaign than presently do.

I actually think that Cindy Sheehan should hold a massive seance. I mean what else has she got to do out in Crawford?

She could communicate with the thousands of dead soldiers and poll them individually as to whether or not they still agree with Mr. Bush’s policies. Perhaps one of the fine religious right televangelists who speak with God directly could facilitate this.

Stephanie,

Demonstrations aren’t unamerican, just ones against the President right? Well thanks for clearing that up for us. It’s a good thing you’re only against demonstrations that you disagree with.

Burt,

I did not say her demonstrations were UnAmerican. I said “Some people are saying that about Sheehan’s message…”

There’s a bit of a difference, thank you very much.

Stephanie,

You’ve previously indicated that you feel that speaking out against the President hurts the troops in Iraq. If you’ve changed your stance, good for you. If not, the message still fits.

Burt,

I haven’t changed my stance…but I didn’t say it was UnAmerican, treason or traitrous. Unpatriotic, yes. Disgraceful, yes. Disrespectful, yes. A real morale buster, yes. And you know what, I can say that all I want and she can continue to be outraged by my saying it, as I can continue to be disgusted with the lack of respect she shows our soldiers, both dead and alive.

Here’s a newsflash for you Stephanie…
Cindy Sheehan doesn’t care what Bush’s followers say about her. She was wise to the Karl Rove-style tactics, and knew that everyone on the right was going to smear her. She also knew that she’d be nothing but meat for the Fauxnews grinder, but she was obviously so sick of the whole lot of you for not holding the president accountable for his actions.
As a result of her bravery on that front, her activism has roused this country from it’s stupor, and has inspired others to speak out as they see fit in defiance of this obviously incompetent administration.
Maybe that’s why I admire Cindy Sheehan so much — despite the fact that I haven’t agreed with some of the things she’s had to say. She’s got guts — and I’ve always liked that in a person. People who will speak out when their consciences, their hearts, and their reasoning minds tell them they HAVE to (and be damned unpleasant consequences) are the kind who have always moved progress along, and have made this world a better place in every possible way.

“I haven’t changed my stance…but I didn’t say it was UnAmerican, treason or traitrous. Unpatriotic, yes.”

You are trying to play word games here — and not very well, I might add. The mother of a dead Marine deserves our respect. The fact that she is being publicly shat on just because she’s protesting against this war is in very poor taste. If one honors Casey Sheehan’s service to America, one shouldn’t attack his mother in her grief, or belittle her anger that he died a violent death fighting in a war so far from home. Especially in light of all we know about how the president took us into this war.

“Disgraceful, yes. Disrespectful, yes. A real morale buster, yes.”

Yeah, so is lying a country into war for oil and profit.

Adrienne:

You didn’t comment on my assertions of the motives behind Cindy Sheehan’s actions. You also neglected to mention that Bush has in fact had the bravery, respect and patience to meet with and listen to Cindy Sheehan. She left that meeting satisfied, but ultimately decided she was not happy with it. So will it be acceptable for her to ask for a third, fourth or fifth meeting, if she doesnt hear what she wants? I have been disappointed that Sheehan has not shown respect for Bush in her comments.

Adrienne, you continue harping on those who are vilifying Cindy Sheehan, but it seems from the posts that people are NOT doing that. They are disagreeing with her position. My sister is a die hard ultraleft liberal—I love her dearly, but I disagree with her positions. I love her dearly, but I don’t think her ideas will make the world a better place. I love her dearly, but I think she is misguided. She has the right to her beliefs, but that does not mean that her beliefs are right.

The point is that well intentioned people can act in ways that don’t achieve their purposes. Possibly the grandest example of this is Neville Chamberlain, who appeased Hitler. His intention was to create peace, but the outcome of his actions emboldened Hitler and resulted in war. This made him no less well intentioned, but it certainly cast some circumspection on his tactics.

I believe Cindy Sheehan is a patriotic American. I also believe that her rhetoric harms America. While its not her intent to do so, I also think her rhetoric tarnishes the decisions her son made.

The Washington Post wrote an article today on this subject of the crosses. There’s more at the article but have included what I think is an important point:

Families Angered by Crosses at War Protest

The Santa Monica crosses are blank, but visitors can write a fallen soldier’s name on a card and place it on a cross. Fitzsimmons said she has seen many “healing moments” from people at the beach display and in Crawford.

At the Crawford display, group members wrote names on the crosses using a Department of Defense list of troop casualties. All soldiers were not listed because there were not enough crosses, although about 200 more were erected recently at the protesters’ second site, a private lot being used for large events.

If they would have stuck with the way the other displays have been done this would never have become an issue.

Adrienne,

“As a result of her bravery on that front, her activism has roused this country from it’s stupor, and has inspired others to speak out as they see fit in defiance of this obviously incompetent administration.” (emphasis added)

As if we weren’t talking about that before…. Hmm. Still doesn’t seem as if she’s accomplished anything except getting us to talk about HER.

“The mother of a dead Marine deserves our respect.”

Perhaps, but the mother of a dead Marine who disrespects her son by ignoring his choices does NOT deserve MY respect, whether you choose to respect her or not.

“If one honors Casey Sheehan’s service to America, one shouldn’t attack his mother in her grief…”

Cindy Sheehan isn’t honoring Casey’s service. That’s my problem with her. Casey made a choice, she disagrees with that choice, and now is trying very hard to blame Bush for her son’s choice.

And, BTW, why is it so much more important to you that Casey was a Marine, and not an ordinary soldier? Are the lives of ordinary soldiers somehow worth less to you? Don’t you understand that part of being a Marine is that you are more likely to be put in more dangerous situations?

jbod:
“You also neglected to mention that Bush has in fact had the bravery, respect and patience to meet with and listen to Cindy Sheehan. She left that meeting satisfied, but ultimately decided she was not happy with it.”

Right, because during that ten minute walk-through Bush didn’t even know the name of the brave marine who died fighting his optional war. And he didn’t take a moment to learn Cindy Sheehan’s name either, so he just called her “Mom”.
Disrespectful. Uncaring. Arrogant.

“So will it be acceptable for her to ask for a third, fourth or fifth meeting, if she doesnt hear what she wants?”

She’s not getting a second, let alone a third. Bush has said he won’t speak with her again — and if he hasn’t by now, it’s unlikely he’ll change his mind.

“I have been disappointed that Sheehan has not shown respect for Bush in her comments.”

Respect is a two way street, Joe. Since she and her son didn’t get any from him, why should we expect her to show any for him now?

“I also believe that her rhetoric harms America. While its not her intent to do so, I also think her rhetoric tarnishes the decisions her son made.”

I strongly disagree.

Lisa Renee:
“Families Angered by Crosses at War Protest”

Three families out of all those crosses isn’t too terrible, IMO:

Fitzsimmons said she does not know if protesters replaced the cross after Qualls left or if it had been initially duplicated by mistake. She said only Qualls and two other families have asked that a cross be removed, which was done. It wasn’t our intention to upset anyone,” she said.

“If they would have stuck with the way the other displays have been done this would never have become an issue.”

It might be wise just to leave those particular crosses blank. After all, it’s not the names written on them that potentially make an impact on the president, or on the rest of America — bringing attention to the lives sacrificed to the Iraq war — it’s the sheer number of them lining the road to his ranch.

Stephanie, I no longer have discussions with people who are over-the-top aggressive in their debating style — because whenever I do, I find I often fall into the trap of critiquing the messenger.
Find someone else to argue with.

Adrienne:

Respect is NOT a two way street. We are all accountable for our own actions. If I am attacked verbally in here for my words, I can nonetheless choose to maintain a level of respect for the other person, or I can choose to lower myself to their level.

Cindy Sheehan has verbally abused President Bush, calling him a murderer and terrorist. He has not responded in kind. He has shown her nothing but respect in his comments. He has not lowered himself to her level.

You seem to be unwilling or unable to discuss the possible ramifications of a Sheehan/Bush meeting. I agree it won’t happen, but can still intelligently see what the outcome would be. No agreement on the issues, no easing of Sheehan’s grief, no better understanding of each other’s point of view. The only outcome would be that the anti-war left would use it for their agenda.

I wish Bush had met with her again. Had he done so, and demanded it be a private meeting rather than a publicly discussed one, I’d think he’d have undercut her agenda. But I suspect that she would have come out of such a meeting with a message for the cameras and media.

By almost all accounts, Bush has been compassionate with the parents of slain soldiers. You choose to look at one woman and take her story, without choosing to accept the myriad of other stories in which people say Bush was respectful and compassionate. Not surprising, but sad nonetheless.

Steve:

Sorry that I couldn’t get back to you before now. I have had a lot going on, you know Dealing with the V.A. and all. You understand.

Then just to make sure everyone understands the tie in between Cindy Sheehan day and free speech we can put a picture of a burning American Flag on the napkins.

Posted by: steve smith at August 22, 2005 04:06 PM

Though I don’t believe in any Desecration of the US Flag. I do think that to Legislate how it must be Shown, flown, respected etc.. is an infringement on yours, Mine and ours Free Speech rights. We may disagree on certain subjects or on all, However when it comes to free speech, I will Defend your Right to it, to the DEATH if neccessary, As I Hope you’d do for me. To prevent freedom of speech is the first step towards the end of Mankind as we know it.

Those are some of my thoughts on this issue.

As Always,
Wayne

jobd:
“We are all accountable for our own actions.”

Yes, all except for the president, it seems.

“Cindy Sheehan has verbally abused President Bush, calling him a murderer and terrorist. “

He pre-emptively invaded a country and the justification for it was “facts fixed around the intelligence”. A great many Iraqi civilians have died as a result. Regarding Iraq, Mrs. Sheehan is correct.
However, I feel she is quite wrong about our going into Afghanistan. In that case, I feel we had every right to take the fight to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

Hello Everyone:

“The madness will likely stop in 2008, thats when you’ll see a 60 vote “R” majority in the senate.”

Posted by: Beagle at August 21, 2005 03:22 PM

IMHO IMHO
Beagle:
I do hope that you are only kidding. Please, tell me you are kidding.
Pretty Please!!

As Always,
Wayne

Adrienne:

You can look for any excuses for Sheehan’s abusive rhetoric, but the responsibility lies 100% with her. She has the freedom of speech to say what she chooses, but with that freedom comes the need to accept the responsibility for having said it.

She can have her strong feelings about Iraq, as you do, but can still present them respectfully if she chooses. She has chosen not to. Perhaps she feels she has no other choice—I don’t know her inner thoughts and won’t speculate about them. I can only comment on her actions and her words.

By excusing her words, you actually take power away from her. Give her the credit for saying what she says, and give her the accordant responsibility for her words. Don’t weaken her comments by suggesting that Bush is really responsible for her rhetoric.

Should we hold Hugo Chavez responsible for inciting Pat Robertson to make his silly comments? Of course not—Robertson made the statements and is responsible for having done so. Same with Sheehan.

“Hey, Yo, Adrienne”

“Always wanted to say that, Sorry”.

He pre-emptively invaded a country and the justification for it was “facts fixed around the intelligence”. A great many Iraqi civilians have died as a result. Regarding Iraq, Mrs. Sheehan is correct. Posted by: Adrienne at August 24, 2005 01:17 PM

What exactly does all that gobeldegook mean exactly? How many “Reasons” have we been (force) FED now? It’s so many, I’ve lost count?
But, what do I know?

Just my thoughts on the matter.

As Always,
Wayne

Hey Lisa:

Great post, but if the supporters and detracters were to do that would we even be needed here posting, blogging, and relieving stress?

“Would not the best solution be to see what common ground both share and work from there?”

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 21, 2005 01:18 PM

Just passing Gas

As Always,
Wayne

The above post did not properly give credit to the rightful poster.

Sorry for the mix up.

“Would not the best solution be to see what common ground both share and work from there?” Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 21, 2005 01:18 PM

That might be true Wayne but I’m sure we’d find something to debate.

:-)

jbod:
“You can look for any excuses for Sheehan’s abusive rhetoric”

Mrs. Sheehan isn’t looking for excuses, and neither am I, Joe. I agree with her when she says that our president is a murderer and a terrorist for invading Iraq on a pack of lies, tearing the country and it’s people apart, and sending our troops into harms way needlessly. But, when she speaks the same way about Afghanistan, clearly she and I part company. Maybe if she had lost someone dear to her on 9/11 as I did, she would view our going there in a different light.

“By excusing her words, you actually take power away from her.”

Nothing can take away from the power of what she has done, now. The president is on the road trying to sell the war again, because of her. They’re still talking about her on TV. And you and I are still discussing her protest and her statements, even when she hasn’t been at Camp Casey for a week. Now that, my friend, is some seriously powerful reaction to one woman’s act of public civil disobedience!
More power to her.

Wayne:
“Hey, Yo, Adrienne”

:^/ Hi there, Wayne.

“Always wanted to say that, Sorry”.

Yeah, I know. You and every other guy I’ve known since the 1970’s…

“What exactly does all that gobeldegook mean exactly?”

That if justice is to be served, Bush will be impeached?

“How many “Reasons” have we been (force) FED now? It’s so many, I’ve lost count?”

Me too.

“But, what do I know?”

I think both of us know quite enough — and perhaps we should be hoping against hope that there won’t be any more.

“Just passing Gas”

A diet with more fruits and veggies might do the trick… ;^)

Adrienne:

You apparently cant see how you tried to excuse Sheehan’s disrespectful comments by saying that Bush essentially caused them. As I tried to point out to you, she could hold to her beliefs and present them in a respectful manner. She has chosen not to.

I’ll restate that—-she has CHOSEN not to be respectful. That decision is hers alone. You can point to any reasons for her choosing that behavior, but they mean nothing. It is still her choice.

Note the difference when Bush speaks about her. His comments are respectful, despite the fact that she calls him a “murderer” and “terrorist”.

You can agree with her viewpoint—that’s not the issue I brought up. The issue at hand is whether she should be disrespectful in her dissent. I support her right to protest, and her right to do so in any manner she chooses. But I also support holding her solely responsible for the manner in which she conducts herself. End of story.

Funny, I thought maybe Gary Quall’s son died to ensure that Cindy Sheehan and everyone else could exercise the kind of free speech she is exercising. It’s either that or the paycheck.

JBOD

Cindy’s actions haven’t led to anyone’s demise, as far as I know. George can’t say the same.

Gary Qualls isn’t trying to make Cindy not speak, he’s asking that she not include his son in her anti-war protest. That created his decision to demonstrate in support of the President, without the action first by the Sheehan supporters he would have stayed in his part of Texas from all reports I’ve read. He is even more of an unlikely person to start a demonstration than Cindy Sheehan is. Funny so many admire Cindy for speaking out but then don’t Gary. If this all about freedom of speech then both parents should be equally respected.

jbod:
“You apparently cant see how you tried to excuse Sheehan’s disrespectful comments by saying that Bush essentially caused them. As I tried to point out to you, she could hold to her beliefs and present them in a respectful manner. She has chosen not to.”

How the hell can Cindy Sheehan, or myself for that matter, sugar coat the words murderer or terrorist? Either someone is those things or they are not. In my opinion, and clearly in her’s, George W. Bush IS.
And btw, the people of England are using those same terms on Tony Blair, so if it makes you feel any better, a Liberal is currently being heaped with the same type of scorn as W (but of course, those folks are totally used to grilling their pols over a very hot fire when it comes to public scrutiny).

“Note the difference when Bush speaks about her.”

First of all, he HAS to. It would be political suicide for him to trashtalk the mother of a soldier who died in his optional war that he lied to get us into. Secondly, he is the President of the United States — people who are expected to be experts in diplomacy. Well, at least they USED to be, before W.

“End of story.”

Later, Alligator. Nice wrestling with you…

Adrienne,

I find it very humorous that you say I’m “are over-the-top aggressive in their debating style” and yet support somebody who 1) does not debate and 2) has actually threatened people.

I have not threatened Cindy, or you, or anyone else (with the possible exception of Pat Robertson, but I would definitely offer an apology and a retraction upon request).

Your hypocrisy is interesting, but not altogether surprising. Ah, well, there’s no accounting for taste.

“I agree with her when she says that our president is a murderer and a terrorist for invading Iraq on a pack of lies…”

You can agree with her, but that does not make her behavior or her manner any more respectable or appropriate.

And now I will leave you alone (unless you address me), so that you don’t lose your temper.

Lisa Renee,

“If this all about freedom of speech then both parents should be equally respected.”

At least for me, it’s not about “freedom of speech.” They both have it, end of story. For me, it’s about responsibility for speech. This is what Cindy Sheehan lacks. So far, as of what I’ve read, Gary Qualls doesn’t lack this essential quality. Therefore, he has my respect.

I meant as far as initial respect, Stephanie, I think we both agree starting out respectful until proven otherwise is the way it should be for both from the outset.

I initially gave Cindy Sheehan respect and while I no longer find her credible, I still respect the fact that she is obviously hurting from the loss of her son.

Adrienne, you do of course have free speech, but I have to say personally I think the statement that the President is a murderer or a terrorist isn’t one I would ever agree with. I’d also state that to call him that means that one should also call the majority of Congress murderers and terrorists as well since they allowed it to take place and continue to finance it.

Despite the constant attempts to make this all about Bush, he did not do this alone. He is not a King, he is a President. Without Congress he would have had no authority.

I can’t help wondering how you feel about Lincoln since he was responsible for the Civil War which could have been avoided. Or the numerous presidents in the past that have led us into wars that were semi questionable. Or is Bush the only one who meets the definition of murderer/terrorist?

I’m not being snarky, as I do wonder that when I hear people state things like that knowing our history.

Lisa Renee,

“I meant as far as initial respect, Stephanie, I think we both agree starting out respectful until proven otherwise is the way it should be for both from the outset.”

I agree completely. Unfortunately, it didn’t take me long to find Casey’s Peace Page which illegitimized Cindy Sheehan in my mind.

Lisa,

BTW, snarky—I like that. Is it in reference to Lewis Carroll’s, or something else?

Lisa Renee:
“Adrienne, you do of course have free speech, but I have to say personally I think the statement that the President is a murderer or a terrorist isn’t one I would ever agree with.”

I’m not expecting you to agree with me, nor am I asking you to do so. As the old saying goes: It’s a free country.

“I’d also state that to call him that means that one should also call the majority of Congress murderers and terrorists as well since they allowed it to take place and continue to finance it.”

Well, before the war, the “facts were being fixed around the intelligence”, so I can’t really blame them for believing what the administration was telling them then. But now, after everything that has been revealed, Congress should definitely be calling for an investigation on how our leaders took us into the Iraq war — because there seems to be plenty of evidence they might look into.
Of course, that is an action that would take the majority in Congress to demand, and somehow, I don’t see that happening, do you? But, if that remains the case, then yes, Congress would have the potential to become almost as guilty as the administration over this war. This would be especially true if they continue to keep our troops in Iraq for four more years as the president has said we must, without ever examining or questioning the reasons for why we went, or why we continue to remain there.

“Despite the constant attempts to make this all about Bush, he did not do this alone. He is not a King, he is a President. Without Congress he would have had no authority.”

Yet, in their fear over 9/11, they gave him powers similar to a King to go to war — in this, the whole Congressional body definitely failed We the People.
And after all that has transpired, I hear today that in the debate’s over Iraq’s Constitution they are discussing whether women will actually still be allowed to go to ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, or if they will no longer receive ANY EDUCATION AT ALL.
Is it acceptable to you that two thousand American men and women died for this? For the tyranny of Fundamentalist Islam to rule over Iraq?
It isn’t to me. Not at all.

“I can’t help wondering how you feel about Lincoln since he was responsible for the Civil War which could have been avoided. Or the numerous presidents in the past that have led us into wars that were semi questionable.”

Why rehash the wars of past that you and I were never a part of? What’s done is done, and we are American’s now, not then. In fact, if you and I had been alive back in Lincoln’s day, we’d have had no vote, and no way to make our political opinions heard.

“Or is Bush the only one who meets the definition of murderer/terrorist?”

Currently, yes. And it’s not just Bush, but all the top officials in this administration are guilty over our invasion of Iraq.

“I’m not being snarky, as I do wonder that when I hear people state things like that knowing our history.”

I’m not being snarky either — I am giving you my honest opinions.
And knowing our history, I too wonder how in 2005 we could actually be making mistakes so similar to those we made during awful years of The Vietnam War.

Stephanie, It’s kind of slang for being sarcastic, or snide, the word has been around for a while in England but has made a splash in the past few years.

Adrienne:

Thanks for admitting that Bush has handled himself differently from Sheehan. While you his motive is because of political consequences and because he is President, at least you showed that you’ve noticed the respectfulness of his comments. That’s enough for me—-I’m sure we wouldn’t agree on much more than that.

Nice wrestling with you as well. Thanks for your time and conversation.

Adrienne, that’s why I was curious as I do compare past Presidential behavior to the present. At times it’s only value is as a consolation of “it could be worse” type scenario, which you are right has no real impact on now. I do agree with you on the fact that we do not learn from history though. Both sides seem to repeat the same patterns, knowing it doesn’t work.

In my opinion another reason for a third party or an independent, to perhaps do a better job at uniting since it’s pretty apparent that’s not going to happen with the two parties we presently have.

Thanks, Lisa!

No problem Stephanie, I wish I could take credit for creating the word.

:-)

Is anyone else bothered by the whole “Mother Sheehan” thing rather than using Cindy Sheehan?

I keep reading her being called that and I don’t get the point of how or why that is being promoted as a proper title.

Mother of a dead son - Mother Theresa. Get it? Saint Sheehan? It’s a dig. Can you dig it? Far out!~

Flashing back to Mama Cass….

:-)