The reality based community

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Botnst

I assumed she raised her boy to think independently, don't you?

From what I've read, somebody did a good job raising him.

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by matt7531

Without a doubt the mostly poignantly profound thing said on this thread. This woman has given more to this country than anyone on this thread, that's for sure.

His life was not hers to give. Casey Sheehan gave his life for his country.

glenmore

[MTI]

Originally Posted by Botnst

I assumed she raised her boy to think independently, don't you?

Botnst, as you seem to know so much about her and her motives, I wonder why you bother to ask the question.

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

yes, and she like everyone else is not entitled to sit down for a second time to speak with the president.

Here's a solution:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050815.shtml

glenmore

[glenmore]

Originally Posted by matt7531

Without a doubt the mostly poignantly profound thing said on this thread. This woman has given more to this country than anyone on this thread, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by MTI

Actually this discussion is meaningless until you live in Cindy Sheehan's world.

Certainly, she, her family and friends have suffered a loss of a loved one. But that gives her no more or less moral authority to argue for or against the war than anybody else. This is the same lame argument that unless Bush administration supporters don't enlist tommorrow or march their kids down to the recruitment center, they should shut up.

glenmore

[peragro]

Originally Posted by glenmore

Here's a solution:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050815.shtml

glenmore

oh dear!! no, no, no! That would give the folks who support the war way too much publicity. To have Ms. Sheehan on one side and her entire family on the other (BTW, also related to Casey Sheehan)? It would also be very difficult to sort out the anti-war clips from amongst the folk who also lost children to Hussein - although I'm sure Michael Moore could "edit" some stuff together...

[Honus]

Originally Posted by glenmore

Here's a solution:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050815.shtml

glenmore

If the reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of Saddam's atrocities against his own people, why did they wait until after the invasion to say so? And why did he wait so long? By the time Bush invaded Saddam had become too weak to commit large scale atrocities. And, finally, when do we start invading all the other countries where people are being mistreated?

[peragro]

Originally Posted by dculkin

If the reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of Saddam's atrocities against his own people, why did they wait until after the invasion to say so? And why did he wait so long? By the time Bush invaded Saddam had become too weak to commit large scale atrocities. And, finally, when do we start invading all the other countries where people are being mistreated?

As soon as they occupy a strategic position in the Middle East where we might influence other countries from, violate 10 years worth of sanctions, shoot at us during said period of sanctions, have a lot of oil, aren't a Islamic theocracy, have a history of attacking our allies, provide funding for our enemies and terrorist organizations and commit various crimes against humanity (I mean real crimes, not the made up ones that the far left attribute to Bush and company) and various other reasons that I can't think of to write down at this moment - others feel free to add to the list.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by peragro

As soon as they occupy a strategic position in the Middle East where we might influence other countries from, violate 10 years worth of sanctions, shoot at us during said period of sanctions, have a lot of oil, aren't a Islamic theocracy, have a history of attacking our allies, provide funding for our enemies and terrorist organizations and commit various crimes against humanity (I mean real crimes, not the made up ones that the far left attribute to Bush and company) and various other reasons that I can't think of to write down at this moment - others feel free to add to the list.

Not a bad list, but what does it have to do with Saddam's human rights violations?

[AustinsCE]

Originally posted by MTI
Yeah, what kind of mother raises an honor student, alter boy, Eagle Scout . . . shame on her . . .

I watched the Daily Show and heard Jon Stewart say that too.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by dculkin

And I understood you and narwhal to be saying that she shouldn't have done that. I also thought that you both believe that she inappropriately exploited her dead son. If that was your intent, then my point stands. We will never know what her son would think of her protest. Claims that she dishonors him are therefore speculative, IMHO....

And you may be correct. We don't know. Unless Mommy supplies a written letter from her son, I don't think we will know, do you?

But let's just take a little ol' peek at the evidence that is available.

He was a smart, determined boy else he could never have earned his Eagle Scout.

He voluntarily enlisted.

He died in action.

Is there any evidence in any of that to suggest he was the kind of man who lived his life through conviction, honor and duty? I think so.

Is there any evidence to suggest that he had or would change his mind and quail in the face of danger?

Bot

[MTI]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Is there any evidence in any of that to suggest he was the kind of man who lived his life through conviction, honor and duty? I think so.

Is there any evidence to suggest that he had or would change his mind and quail in the face of danger?

Bot

Botnst, where is your evidence? I see your "opinion" but everybody has those.

[H2O2]

Originally Posted by djugurba

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.

This post succinctly covers all the bases.

Son offers his noble services and his life is squandered based upon a pack of lies. Who the hell would voluntarily give their life for a pack of lies, even if it was ostensibly stated to be for a noble cause like god and country? A fraud and a crime was perpetrated upon that family (and the rest of the world), more power to her as she seeks redress.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Is there any evidence to suggest that he had or would change his mind and quail in the face of danger?...

You've got a compound question there. On the first part of the question, I would say that I don't know, but I doubt that there is any such evidence. On the second part, I would have the same answer, but would ask what it has to do with this discussion. Did anyone suggest that he "quailed"? I've not heard that suggestion from anybody. Nor do I see the relevance.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Show me where the orders were unlawful.

Did Congress empower the president? Yes?

If Congress gives Georgie-boy the power to wage war, it is a legal war.

B

This is a tough one. There are times when a country needs an army. And if every grunt exercised the option of pondering each and every order that drifted down to him, that army would likely be defeated. OTOH, I have real trouble turning my body and mind over to be used as an extension of the mind of someone like say, LBJ, Nixon, or Dubya-dubs.

I have a feeling I'm going to be held to account for the deeds committed by my hand, and saying that I was ordered to so with a legal order by my commander in chief will not cover it, I'm afraid. Particulary when one has a nagging feeling that the commander in chief is a semi-whack job, as I felt during Nam under LBJ and Nixon.

Geroge W. Bush inspires a lot of reactions in me and none of them are confidence. The man and his crowd are way outta touch.