That's the part I don't get. If this lady is sincere in her belief that W lied his way into this war, then I think she should stand up for her dead son by opposing the war. Where am I going wrong?

Again, for the thousandth time, I am not asking anyone to agree that W lied about anything, but isn't Cindy Sheehan entitled to her beliefs?

yes, and she like everyone else is not entitled to sit down for a second time to speak with the president. Who does she really think she is, that she deserves to talk to the President of the United States, thats what bothers me, this stuck up, childish attitude. But if her son did not disagree with the war, which he must not have too much or he wouldn't have participated, then she is dishonoring him by opposing the war, in which he believed, and died for. So thats another reason not to like her. She can either believe in the concept of dying for your country and her son, or neither, they go hand in hand.

I agree with you there. My guess is that she never expected W to meet with her, but figured it was a good way to publicize her cause. If so, then it is hard to argue with her results. It was smart of her to stage her demonstration out on the Texas prairie rather than on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House where she would be just another demonstrator.That's a close call. I can see a few ways she can justify her position. For one, I think she would say that W lied to her son just like she believes he lied to the rest of the country. If that is her belief, then her only criticism of her son is that he was gullible. The second reason she might rely upon is that her son made an unwise but honorable choice. Lots of mothers criticize their sons' choices. That does not make them bad mothers. Nor does it dishonor their sons.

I take it that Casey Sheehan was a professional soldier. He never had any intention other than to defend the country. As such, he had no real choice when the Commander in Chief sent him to Iraq. It wasn't his place to question his orders or abandon his comrades. All of which only justifies his mother's anger at W. When honorable men and women put their lives on the line, the President has to be scrupulously honest in deciding whether to send them into harm's way. If Cindy Sheehan believes that W violated that trust, then it would dishonor her son were she to remain silent.

I don't know what is in Sheehan's heart, but I think that she believes that her son was a great man who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. I don't see her opposition to W as being inconsistent with honoring her son, although it is easy to see why so many people disagree with me on that.

Well, she can hate the war all she wants, but saying its a sham is dishonoring her son by saying he died, basically for nothing, or rather a lie. She cant have it both ways, either her son died for a cause or he didn't. If she disagrees with what her son did and thinks he's gullible, its her qualm with him, but since hes no longer around, she throws this fit and blames the Pres. Even if he lied, the son did believe it, and she is pissing on his beliefs. If it was honorable, then where's the problem? A lie is not honorable, thus, dying in the war is not, to her. My end thought is basically, she can nag on this all she wants but when she brings her son up, she discredits herself. All she is doing is using him as a tool in her own agenda, it isnt what he would want, honoring his memory, you know someone dies you do something good in their name sure, but his thoughts aren't being considered, just hers. He isnt here so saying that she thinks he was gullible is a non-issue, because as he left it, he believed in what he did, if he comes up and says, yep, i screwed up it all changes. Kinda like, she isn't in any place to stand up for her son if she is only arguing her own point. I think we can agree to disagree, I like that it hasn't turned to weird stuff like it does at times on here. i can see both sides, too, just that I'm on this side, and I don't like this woman.

Could be she knows she'll not meet with him again and is doing the vigil because it will attract more attention than another meeting with Bush would.

In the NYT account, she said she was annoyed that Bush kept calling her "Mom" at their first meeting. I've seen Dubya pull that folksy ol' boy thing out plenty of times. I can just hear him calling her "Mom." Something in the way his emotions connect, or rather don't connect with his words in a coherent manner says way more about Bush on a gut level concerning his fitness for office than any dozen well written op-ed pieces ever could.

I think Sheehan is a bit batty myself but I don't believe her opinions on the nature of this war need to be modified by the fact that her son volunteered for military duty. She will not have a son in her older years. If she sincerely believes her son's life was squandered, she has a duty to speak up.

Let me get this straight. It's a soldier's duty to follow a lying commander in chief pursuing imperial interests far afield? If a soldier's commanding officer orders her to kill an enemy combatant because the officer claims the enemy is armed but the soldier knows the enemy isn't, is it the soldier's duty to kill the enemy or disobey the commanding officer?
I thought it was a soldier's duty to protect his or her country.

Ok, a few talking points here:

First;

why, oh why do people think that because poll numbers are down so and so should do such and such. This seemed to be the mentality that lost the last election. I’d much rather have a leader who did what he thought was right rather than what the latest survey said. Why not just elect Richard Dawson president; remember “survey says…”
And please don’t respond with “we’re a democracy, so opinion matters”. We elect officials for a period of time. We don’t ask for opinion every time a decision is needed, thank God.

Second, right on Bot. As usual, a very succinct synopsis.

Third; Not knowing Ms. Sheehan I don’t know what her motivations are. Though a good indicator seems to be that her family is distancing themselves from her. I, much like her husband, would certainly not be happy with my son’s life being used the way she is going about this. I also find it quite disgusting that the far left groups and Michael Moore are using this situation for publicity. It’s dishonorable, low and shameful.

Fouth;

Please stop alluding that the poor guys in the military have no choice but to follow the evil whims of the president. They will follow the orders of the lawfully elected Commander in Chief, whether he be republican or democrat. They did so on several occasions during the 1990s. That was the CHOICE made upon enlistment or commissioning. They are neither stupid nor uninformed, quite the opposite. This is the most educated military that we have ever had and perhaps the world has ever seen. Oh, and by the way, they support this President by overwhelming majority. Could that be why the DNC tried to suppress their vote?

When did I ever say that? Or allude to it?Sounds right to me.Did someone say different? And does their support for Bush mean that us non-soldiers are required to agree with them?That comment ranks right up there (or down there) with charges that the RNC tried to suppress the black vote.

I'm sure 'mom' was supportive of her son's military service. He undoubtedly assumed that going to war was a logical possibility of his position. And, she would have been stupid not to assume the same.

The issue is not whether or not he should have expected to go to war, but under what grounds he'd be expected to die in a war. W's position of public trust demands that when he commit troops to situations in which they may be killed in action, he do so for valid reasons.

Her contention is that W. has betrayed a critical public trust by lying to both military and citizenry with regards to the need to go to war in Iraq. And, her contention is easily proven true. Thusly, she has a reason to complain.

She does not impugne her son's decision to serve in doing so. She does, however, take issue with the reasons given us for going into that war in the first place. Her son HAS died for nothing, and I think we'd all be pissed if in the same boat- especially if the one who made the decision to send him off was busy concocting more lies to keep sending more soldiers to their deaths.

Poll numbers matter. That's why they take them. The "political capital" the prez likes to speak of so often are based on his approval numbers. When your approval numbers are high you can cajole fence sitting members of congress to your position by campaigning in their districts, doing photo ops with them ect. When your numbers are low, no one wants to be seen with you and you have less influance. Do you think Frist would have flipped on stem cell research if Bush had a 60% approval rating? No. But at 35% approval Frist can do whatever he wants. Because his numbers are higher than Bush's. If you want to push your agenda you must be popular. It's bad enough being a second term president, but a second term president with low approval numbers doesn't have a lot of "juice."


You don't know this because they took a poll do you?

Got an LSD connection?

Yeah, the woman is entirely within her rights and doing her duty as a citizen to stand by her convictions.

She could do that without dishonoring her son.

He is silent on this issue other than doing his duty as he saw it, but she can use him in her argument.

That is cheap.

B

Play it straight and I will.

It is a soldier's duty to follow lawful orders, period. Was he given lawful orders?

Bot

Only one poll matters. The rest are just for fun.

How?She isn't using her son in her argument anymore than you are using him in yours.