This mother who is protesting outside of Bush’s ranch is upset over the death of her son in Iraq. That is understandable, but her comments are unforgivable.
“I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?” Sheehan told reporters. “He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is.”
Her son signed up for the military. When sent off to a warzone, there is a chance you can die. Every soldier anywhere in the world and their families know there is a chance they can die. This mother needs to apologize for Bush for saying that he “…killed her son”.
He did NOT kill her son. Islamo-Facists killed him. Get it straight lady!
And she also wants to know what the noble cause is? Is she vacationing on the moon!? The U.S. has freed an entire people, and entire country from the rule of a tyrannical madman! Millions of lives have been saved and democracy is gaining a hold in the middle east. Is there not a more noble cause than freeing people?
The message also urges Bush to send his twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, to Iraq “if the cause is so noble.”
I’ve heard this so many times from people like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911… The left doesn’t seem to understand that the military is a volunteer force, the parents DO NOT SEND THEIR CHILDREN! THE CHILDREN HAVE TO VOLUNTEER TO GO!!! This above statement angers me to no end.
If Jenna and Barbara Bush WANT to serve the country and WANT to join the military, they can! But they don’t. They chose to go to college and go into the fields they chose for themselves.
“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.”
The leftists say this war is so bad and we need to leave immediately, then if we did, the Iraqi government could collapse and the new rulers, probably the Bathist party, would go back to a Saddamish regime and the left would still blame the right for not staying longer and keeping human rights violations from happening.
Basically the U.S. saved the Iraqis from one of the largest human rights violator of our time, Saddam Hussein.
But we cannot just pick up and leave, things need to be done to insure extremists like Saddam do not take over again. We have to train their military and police, we have to build their infrastructure and communications systems. It’s not over until they can maintain peace on their own. And it’s a good chance, while we are there, to kill as many Islamo-Facists as possible.
So to summarize my opinion on this woman, Cindy Sheehan.
It is not Bush’s fault your son is dead, it is the fault of the Islamo-Facists.
If you want to blame anyone, blame either them or your son for signing up for the military.
I’m sure your son was a good person and he DID die for a noble cause. Now get over it.
You are correct that Bush did not kill Cindy Sheehan's son. Bush did, however, put Casey Sheehan in harm's way. It wasn't like Casey Sheehan was doing his military service at a cushy, relatively safe stateside military base, like most U.S. soldiers have done for the past 30 years. No, Casey was off in Iraq doing the president's bidding, … and in harm's way, where he was killed. I agree with you that Cindy Sheehan doesn't have her rhetoric quite right, but neither do you.
Now, Cindy Sheehan claims she wants some direct accountability from the president. Frankly, I doubt she'll get what she's looking for, even if she does meet with him, but I think Bush (uncharacteristically) missed a great PR and political opportunity by not meeting with her initially, before this whole situation began to escalate. Instead of defusing the situation while appearing to show compassion and reassurance to the grieving mother, Bush now has to deal with the PR fallout as this situation gets uglier, and he will have to deal as well with the Cindy Sheehan clones who are now sure to follow in her footsteps.
It's a war. People die. Especially at risk are the militaries of the countries involved. Bush didn't WANT her son to die. Bush is not responsible. Bush put himself in harms way when he made the suprise Thanksgiving appearance in Baghdad.
Can you imagine if EVERY mother from every war wanted "accountability" from the president during that war? That would be wrong. That shouldn't be and isn't the way it is. The son knew what he was getting into when he joined. Even if he was in a support position, he knew he was in harm's way. If soldiers object to the war, then they shouldn't participate. Sure, they may be court martialled, but if they are against it, it's better than dying.
The military isn't always a cushy job sitting back at a stateside base. Sometimes you have to go to another country and risk your life.
I do agree with you that he should've soothed her anguish before this all happened, but he didn't I guess. But everyone against Bush on the war thinks he doesn't care about the deaths of US soldiers. Honestly I think he does more than we know. I think each one he hears about affects him in some way. But he believes, and a lot of people believe, what he is doing is right. Freeing an entire people from tyranny.
And anyone who says there were no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda must be in a cave themselves. Come on people. They are all terrorists… Saddam was no different than Bin Laden, except that he had an "Infrastructure", Iraq, to carry out his madness.
And noone has ever addressed the thing on the left where they think the politicians can "Send" their children off to war. It was in Fahrenheit 911 and now Cindy Sheehan is using it too, I think she is just a tool for Michael Moore, she has been brainwashed into believing his lies as most on the left has as well.
*Disclaimer*
I do not support Bush 100%, I am actually against him in some issues. Especially Stem cell research. I am not for abortion, but as long as it's legal, use the corpses of the lost souls if it can save the life of someone who needs saving. Let it advance to the point where the after product of fetal holocaust isn't needed to advance the technology.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on a lot of this. Most of the facts speak pretty well for themselves, so I won't belabor these issues and go point-by-point on where I think you are in error. I will mention a couple of specific things in response, however, just for the heck of it. First, you're way too flip and unrealistic in asserting that a court martial would be a reasonable alternative to a soldier's continuing to serve. In addition to probably serving years incarcerated for desertion, that individual would then face the prospect of dealing with the fallout for the entire rest of his/her life. Some option. How do you think prospective employers would like to see "dishonorably discharged for desertion; incarcarated in military jail for 5 years (or longer)" on someone's resume? In World War II, the U.S. actually executed a soldier (I believe his name was Eddie Slovik) for trying to get out of active duty by seeking a court martial. Oops — contrary to what you say, Eddie Slovik would now probably tell us that it's a bad idea. Given the choice, nothing personal but I'd take his word on it rather than yours. If you think this court martial thing is such a good idea, I suggest you give it a try and then tell us how good an option it is.
As to the idea that Bush feels worse about these deaths and injuries than anybody knows, you don't provide any evidence to support what you say, so I assume this is just a hunch on your part. I don't see much evidence of it, however. What I do know is that Bush has been reluctant to let the American people see photos of the caskets of the returning dead (so that we can all mourn them and pay them their due respect). I know that Bush himself was very, very slow to make any personal appearances at military hospitals to honor the wounded and cheer them up. I know that Bush taunted the enemy and encouraged them to attack our troops by saying "bring 'em on," which probably led to more U.S. deaths (and he has never apologized or stepped back from that ridiculous remark). As for your comment about our actions "freeing an entire people from tyranny," if you don't think the Iraqis are experiencing tyranny right now, then you must have blinders on. The country is a mess. And as many Americans are dying over there right now, there are many more Iraqis dying as we see a civil war unfolding before our eyes between the Sunnis and the Shiites. (Can the Kurds be far behind?) Is there any less safe job in the world today than being an Iraqi policeman? Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if the tyranny created by the civil war we helped unleash went on for decades, if not longer.
I'd like to comment on your remarks about the alleged links between Saddam and al Queda, but I won't even bother to go there, except to say that you don't provide any evidence to support your proposterous statements other than to say "come on people, they are all terrorists." Surely, you can't be serious. Is that your entire argument to support the alleged "links"? Even Bush has admitted that there were no links. Regardless, it doesn't seem that you put enough thought into what you wrote for me to get into any in-depth commentary, so I'll just say that the facts speak clearly for themselves, and also that (contrary to your allegation) I am not in a cave.
Finally, I think you give Michael Moore too much credit. Cindy Sheehan is almost 50 years old, and I would strongly suspect that she already knew what she believed in long before she ever heard of Michael Moore. Moreover, it's not like Michael Moore invented this idea of asking politicians why they don't send their kids to war. I'm guessing you must be relatively young, Idude, because I remember this same issue being debated during the Vietnam War. (Hey, in fact, doesn't this very issue perfectly describe George W. Bush? We can make Bush "Exhibit 1." Bush's daddy got him into the Texas Air National Guard so he wouldn't get drafted and have to fight in Vietnam.) Michael Moore wasn't around with his films back then, but Cindy Sheehan is almost 50, so it stands to reason that she remembers that whole debate. Frankly, I'm sure it has been an ongoing debate for generations of Americans, covering the span of numerous wars, and of course the facts (once again) speak for themselves. None of these chickenhawk politicians ever did any combat duty themselves, and their kids aren't on the front line either. That sounds like the classic definition of a hypocrite to me.
There you have it — that's my two cents worth. More and more Republicans are throwing away the blinders and getting on the same page as well. For example, I suggest you check out the recent remarks by Senator Chuck Hagel, a guy who has actually been in combat (unlike Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft, etc.) and can see clearly what a mess Bush has created out of this whole thing. In any event, that's enough from me — have a nice day.