Cindy Sheehan and the liberation of Iraq
A reader wrote in yesterday wondering if we were going to post on Cindy Sheehan. I agree with him that this is an “incredibly rich topic,” so thought I would share a few thoughts.
As least as far back as the Greeks, people noted the particular sadness of the death of a child. In the Fifth Century before the Common Era, the historian Herodotus wrote, “In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons.” I cannot imagine the grief that Ms. Sheehan and thousands of other parents have experienced at the loss of their son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan. Just as many parents grieved on September 11, 2001, when their children’s lives were cut short. While some of those parents oppose the war, many continue to support the president even after the loss of their child.
Most of the parents bear their grief in private. Ms. Sheehan has made a public spectacle of herself. As EMT 907 noted last week on his blog, she changed her story about her meeting with the president. Even though she did not support the president’s policies in Iraq, she initially described her meeting with the president in positive terms. Right after the meeting, she said, I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis . . . . I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.” But, last week (more than a year after the meeting), she claimed on CNN that Mr. Bush treated the meeting “like a party.”
She now thinks that if it were not for the Internet, “we would already be a fascist state.” I can’t think of a single fascist state which allows its citizens to protest so vociferously so close to the chief executive’s summer retreat while that very state does not prevent the media from reporting such protests.
I highly doubt that the MSM would give this much attention to a woman who had lost her son in the war and then spoke out publicly in defense of the president, saying that he should not let setbacks in the war discourage him and must fight on until victory so that her son would not have died in vain. Now, as far as I know, there is no such woman leading such rallies, but many parents who have lost children in Iraq continue to support the president. While she certainly represents one perspective, Cindy Sheehan does not speak for all parents who have lost children in Iraq.
Indeed, she doesn’t even speak for her entire family. Relatives of her husband (from whom she is separated) “issued public statements attacking Ms. Sheehan for her protest.” (Those statements have not nearly drawn the attention that Ms. Sheehan’s antics have.)
Moreover, she, like many critics of the president, remains blind to the reality of our mission in Iraq. In this rambling letter, she misstates the reasons for the “invasion of Iraq.” The president did not say (as she claims) that Saddam was an “imminent threat to America” nor that he could have “WMD’s on our shores within 45 minutes.“
She seems to borrow her rhetoric from the rantings of Michael Moore, offering up the same dishonest left-wing claptrap on Iraq:
We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy…not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn’t changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq…in fact it has gotten worse.
That’s right. Despite the closing of Saddam’s torture chambers, the end of his random executions, the free election of Iraqi government, Ms. Sheehan thinks things in Iraq are worse now than they were under Saddam. Over at GOP Vixen, Bridget offers some images (WARNING–they’re gruesome) of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq–which Cindy Sheehan believes to have been a better place than Iraq since the U.S. liberation.
My heart goes out to Ms. Sheehan and the other parents who have lost children in this noble cause. I cannot begin to understand the grief she–and her family–must have suffered–and still be suffering. But, her grief should not cause us to forget the “million Iraqi mothers” who no longer “expect death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.”
At Iraq the Model, Mohammed writes a touching letter to Cindy Sheehan about the meaning of the U.S. liberation of his nation. (Hat tip Best of the Web.) He writes of mothers who searched mass graves and prison cells for evidence of their children, murdered by the henchmen of a tyrant whom now sits in U.S. custody awaiting trial. Some of his victims just “disappeared from earth.”
I cannot measure, cannot even imagine what these mothers have suffered. Throughout history, countless parents have suffered when their sons and daughters died in wars both just and unjust. At least we know that Casey Sheehan died fighting a just war and his sacrifice, along with that of other brave Americans–and troops from other coalition lands–will mean that the people of Iraq will be free and they–and millions of others in the Middle East–will turn to the U.S. and our allies for inspiration, for hope and vision of a better future.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Lorie Byrd has two short posts on this topic, one linking Arthur Chrenkoff’s post on the grieving parents who support President Bush. And this one. Linking to the Chrenkoff’s post, Ace of Spades notes that there is “No MSM coverage for those who believe their sons and daughters died for a noble cause.”
I’m more sorry that the left, and their willing accomplices in the MSM, have no problem exploiting this woman.
Comment by EMT907 — August 15, 2005 @ 8:55 pm - August 15, 2005
The Achlles’s Heel of the Lunatic Left
Cindy Sheehan is doing an excellent job of prostituting her grief and her son across the country to aid people like Kos, whining about how there was no “noble cause”.
Here’s your noble cause, Cindy and Kos.
Trackback by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2005 @ 9:09 pm - August 15, 2005
Question, that’s a silly question. He has not attended the funerals because he believes it would be a distraction to the grieving families, given the security that his presence would entail and the spectacle it would cause. But, here, the Anchoress notes how a Newsweek report on the president’s meetings with the families (in private) showed the true nature of the man.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 15, 2005 @ 9:45 pm - August 15, 2005
Moonbat Mom About to Lose Another Family Member
From the Associated Press:
A California woman leading an anti-war protest near President George W. Bush’s Texas ranch is being sued for divorce.
Cindy Sheehan — whose son was killed in Iraq — is demanding a personal meeting with…
Trackback by Independent Sources — August 15, 2005 @ 10:19 pm - August 15, 2005
What, Question, do you think he should take the liberal approach and just show up and start handing out business cards?
Do you have any idea what all is involved in a presidential appearance?
Comment by EMT907 — August 15, 2005 @ 11:06 pm - August 15, 2005
Cindy is a broken woman. She’s lost her son, is losing her husband, and has lost her job. I think GWB missed a golden opportunity to bring her grief into a larger context, but once again his pride won’t allow him to honor several parents of the dead who want to express their views. So much for “compassionate conservativism.” No doubt Cindy and others (like myself) wonder how many must die for “his” cause, since the public is no longer behind his mismanagement of the war, the spurious reasons he gave for it, or feels the ends justify the means. In any event, its another GWB loss for his continued arrogance: Not listening to senior military advisors and/or firing them because they send the wrong message.
Yes, Cindy may not be “balanced,” but then again neither is he. He has a character flaw that won’t allow him to admit any wrong (like too few troops in Iraq, bogus WMD as the raison d’etre for invading an otherwise peaceful nation, etc.). Unable to be either compassionate or the better person, he’s fueled sympathy and empathy for the family and friends of over 1,800 people who died for a “cause” that isn’t altogether clear any longer.
I don’t know what’s worse: Cindy’s devolving life (she’s lost her job and her husband due to her grief); Cindy’s being used by the far left for its propaganda purposes; or, GWB’s inepitude and callousness. Who can say who has the most to lose, but certainly we can observe that our commander-in-chief is less than he ought to be? Pride goes before the fall, and GWB, already fallen from public grace, is about to lose more people to the antiwar side because he’a neither compassionate nor competent.
Comment by Stephen — August 16, 2005 @ 2:17 am - August 16, 2005
“otherwise peaceful nation”????????
Iraq was an “otherwise peaceful nation”????
Stephen, that ignornant statement sounds alot like people who declare that “the holocaust in Germany never happened”.
It is no wonder Leftists have gone stark raving mad, their brains are swollen with raging hate.
Comment by syn — August 16, 2005 @ 2:41 am - August 16, 2005
Stephen-
It’s not a character flaw of the President that prevents him from “admitting” that your delusions are true.
To meet with the parents of a dead soldier privately and console them — this expresses the virtue of compassion. He did that, and does that. Other than embarassing the President and creating more grief for the Sheehan family down the road, what purpose do you think would be served by the President meeting with her again, under the present circumstances?
Comment by Clint — August 16, 2005 @ 4:48 am - August 16, 2005
What you don’t understand is… Karl Rove personally arranged for her son to be murdered so that she would go insane and distract the media from his outing of Valerie Plame…
Comment by V the K — August 16, 2005 @ 5:46 am - August 16, 2005
GayPatriot - I think your post was a pretty good conservative argument here. Too bad many of your readers don’t have the same level of decency as you ( Moonbat Mom About to Lose Another Family Member). However, you make a rational argument.
I think the point of view of Cindy Sheehan is open for debate. We should debate the merits, goals and accomplishments of this war. However, some readers in this - and other - threads have gone overboard. The fact remains tht Cindy Sheehan has sacrificed more for her country that GayPatriot, his readers, or myself.
I don’t agree with alot of what Cindy Sheehan says, but she has the right to say it. And I think people on her should be much more respectful of a mother whose son was sacrificed for our country.
Comment by John — August 16, 2005 @ 6:23 am - August 16, 2005
I willing to say it: Cindy Sheehan’s publicity stunt dishonors the memory of her son’s service, her own family, and –indirectly- dishonors all those who serve honorably in the War on Terror. She is not the honest dissenter protesting her govt’s actions; her story appears to change to suit extant interests. She’s not a grieving mother of a dead soldier –she’s a slick news magnet looking for attention, willingly accepting money and management from anti-Bush political hacks seeking to advance THEIR political agenda at any cost, sinking to any level.
George Will once called these kinds of stories and the media’s fascination with them “the pornography of grief”. Cindy Sheehan, in my book, is a dishonor to her family, her son’s memory, and the honorable men & women serving in the War on Terror.
And for what? Media attention. Helping others advance their political agenda.
It’s shameful and contemptible.
Comment by Matt-Michigan — August 16, 2005 @ 6:34 am - August 16, 2005
“The fact remains tht Cindy Sheehan has sacrificed more for her country that GayPatriot, his readers, or myself.”
First off, John, that’s an extremely-broad statement. Do you know all of us? Do you know if any of us have had relatives or friends killed in combat in Iraq or anywhere else?
What I’m afraid of here is that the assumption is being made that, if we had family or friends who had died in combat, we would oppose war. That ignores something that Cindy Sheehan should be well aware of — the fact that people enlist and go to war willingly because of reasons that are greater than self-preservation. Her son enlisted not once, but TWICE, over her protests.
What she is doing now is classic projection — she thinks she’s a “bad mother” for letting her son go off to be killed, so she’s pushed the bad feelings off herself and onto George Bush. What she needs to come to grips with is that Casey was an adult, and he made his choices, come as they were. Once she quits looking for someone else to blame, I think she will be much, much happier.
“I don’t agree with alot of what Cindy Sheehan says, but she has the right to say it. And I think people on her should be much more respectful of a mother whose son was sacrificed for our country.”
Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants, and I also agree that her grief should be respected. However, the fact that she is a grieving mother does not give her the right to throw reality out the window, or to be allowed to say whatever she wants unchallenged.
Let’s face facts. Whatever message she had has now been perverted by the brazen exploitation of paid leftist PR flacks. If this were a funeral, she would be being quietly led back to the limousine as she screamed and hollered incoherently. Instead, she’s being paraded as some sort of twisted symbol, a fact which even she is starting to recognize.
George Bush isn’t “disrespecting” Cindy Sheehan. Kos, Aravosis, the Democratic Party, and all the other leftists who have turned her private mourning into a public spectacle are. I think she was incredibly naive to think that anything else would happen.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2005 @ 7:48 am - August 16, 2005
Matt,
Who the hell are you to determine what honors Cindy Sheehan’s son? I have a feeling Cindy Sheehan’s son would defend his mother in what she is doing. He certainly wouldn’t take kindly to people ripping his mother to shreds for doing what she feels honors her son’s memory best. If anyone has the right to determine how to honor a fallen soldier, it’s the family they left behind. She has every right to do what she is doing and frankly I don’t care if the left is exploiting her. The right is an incapable of handling criticism from those who have actually lost something in this war. She lost her child. I don’t think she has any reason to accept that her son’s death was “justified” and he was “expendible” for the greater good of mankind. We get one life people and I would certainly be OUTRAGED if I felt someone I loved was taken from me for unjustifiable reasons. Cut her some slack. You don’t have to agree with her reasons or believe that she is right, but you can certainly recognize her right to feel the way she feels. While I personally think Cindy is dead on with her criticism of this war, I at least respect GPW’s ability to discuss it without calling her a lunatic. Until you’ve lost something in this war, don’t judge those who have.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 7:52 am - August 16, 2005
People - Two words for us all -
CASEY SHEEHAN.
Dan, great roundup of stuff on Cindy.
At the same time - what about Casey? He’s the “forgotten man” in all this.
He’s the one who made the real sacrifice, to protect us. (Cindy did not.) Casey re-enlisted in August 2003, knowing (i.e., in all likelihood intending) that he would be sent to Iraq. By some accounts, he volunteered to be in the battle it wasn’t his turn to be in - in which he gave his life. Think about it.
He believed in America, he believed in the Iraq mission in the greater War on Terror…and his mother is now out there repudiating what he stood for, making it “all about her” and her ugly agenda/beliefs, instead. Yuck!
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 8:05 am - August 16, 2005
Britton, the rest of the Sheehan family has stood up and told that Cindy is NOT honoring what her son stood for. They have REPUDIATED her efforts to misuse Casey Sheehan’s memory. Pay more attention.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 8:08 am - August 16, 2005
So we should assume Joe that you know more about Casey Sheehan than his mother? I’m not saying you’re not dead on, but you have no idea what his reasons were for serving or what he believed in. And to say Cindy has made no sacrifice? Gimme a break.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 8:10 am - August 16, 2005
She has the right to mourn her son and honor his memory however she sees fit. You don’t have to agree with it. In face, it’s really none of your business. I don’t think anyone here would deny its a pretty unique relationship a mother has with her child, even in comparison with other familial relationships. Sure, she may not be behaving rationally, but to rip her apart for how she chooses to mourn is a bit ruthless and tactless. You have no right to tell that woman how to feel about the loss of her son. NONE. Criticize the media all you want, criticize her arguments against the war in Iraq if you want, but don’t tell a woman the “appropriate” way to mourn her child. You have no right.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 8:13 am - August 16, 2005
It’s worth it to also tie this circus in with another theme we discussed a few days ago: that the MSM is giving one-sided (negative) coverage to the Iraq war.
In my own phrasing: that World War II could not have been won, with such a media as we have today. For more evidence, let’s do a though experiment on this one.
Imagine a young man who volunteered for the service after Pearl Harbor (as tens of thousands did).
Imagine him going to the German theater (”the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time; we should have finished Japan first” is probably what Kerry would have said).
Imagine him dying heroically, earning a Bronze Star (as I believe Casey did), in one of the many battles in which “incompetent” U.S. army leaders, and Roosevelt, would lose thousands of U.S. lives in a single day.
Imagine the mother of such a soldier being comforted personally by Roosevelt, and acknowledging herself at that time that Roosevelt really cares.
Imagine that same mother also being a Jew-hater (as, from her own letters and speeches, Cindy Sheehan is something of an Israel-hater). Imagine her later progressively cracking up and denouncing Roosevelt as the evil leader of a cabal to establish the State of Israel (as Sheehan today denounces Bush as the evil leader of a cabal to defend Israel).
Imagine the mother denouncing Roosevelt for getting us illegitimately into the German theater and the “illegal and unnecessary fight with Hitler, unnecessary because Hitler was never an imminent threat the United States as Roosevelt said he was!”
Imagine that mother camping out at Hyde Park, trying to cut in line, in effect (ahead of thousands of other grieving mothers), for a second meeting with Roosevelt where, by her own publicly announced intention, she could then abuse and denounce Roosevelt properly.
Would the press, of that era, spend 10 seconds on such an obvious lunatic? Boy, is ours today different.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 8:24 am - August 16, 2005
“She has the right to mourn her son and honor his memory however she sees fit.”
As a private matter - Of course.
If she is going to attempt to ENLIST US (the public) in a theater of the absurd, that is something different. As the captive audience, we have the right to question her and, especially when the rest of her family warns us “She isn’t representing Casey’s memory”, to notice that in fact she is seeking to undermine or reject what Casey Sheehan stood for. We have a right to NOT close our eyes to how she is failing him.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 8:29 am - August 16, 2005
She wouldn’t be making a public spectacle if Bush would meet with her. That is all she has asked for. If the media chooses to cover her, so be it.
As for her being an Israel hater, she has said several times that quotations and supposed letters that are being said she said/wrote are untrue and she has never said anything of the sort. She said a lot of what the internet is claiming she’s said is untrue. From all the other controversial statements she does admit to making, I can’t imagine she’s lying about having not said other things.
Also - just yesterday on like three different MSM outlets, they interviewed Cindy and immediately interviewed mothers who do believe their children died for a good reason in Iraq. So they are covering both sides of this issue. Or at least trying to.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 8:34 am - August 16, 2005
#16 - Britton - Yes. When Casey Sheehan went to Iraq, Cindy didn’t DO anything. It was his action. When he volunteered for the battle and was unfortunately killed, again Cindy didn’t DO anything. When somebody is taken from you - even in a car accident, or by cancer, or whatever - you have had something HAPPEN TO you. You have suffered a tragedy; you haven’t MADE (active word) a sacrifice. There is the difference. Let’s remember the one who actually did something - the one who actually sacrificed something - the actual hero. OK?
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 8:37 am - August 16, 2005
“She has the right to mourn her son and honor his memory however she sees fit. You don’t have to agree with it. In face, it’s really none of your business.”
Sorry, Britton, but, according to your rules, she’s a “public figure” and she can be trashed for “hypocrisy”.
Karma is hell when it boomerangs back, isn’t it? Maybe you’ll think about that next time you argue for “outing” someone because “they put themselves in front of the media” or “they’re a public figure”. When you do that, you play with lives, you play with peoples’ feelings, and you ruin it. You like to get all sanctimonious about how “you have no right to tell a mother how to grieve”, but you’re more than willing to tell people how to live relative to their sexual orientation.
Ironically, she’s now having second thoughts about the “circus” she created. I think her decision to step back and refocus is a sound one.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2005 @ 8:37 am - August 16, 2005
Britton, jeez, are you paying any attention at all? *BUSH ALREADY MET WITH HER*. And there are hundreds of other mothers he hasn’t been able to meet with. Shouldn’t those other mothers get their FIRST meeting with Bush, before Cindy gets her SECOND meeting where she can carry out her professed attention of attacking Bush’s very patriotism and abusing him?
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 8:39 am - August 16, 2005
“As for her being an Israel hater, she has said several times that quotations and supposed letters that are being said she said/wrote are untrue…”
Then why does she keep company with Israel-haters? Why did the Crawford Peace House web page, with Cindy on it, originally have something like 17 mentions/denunciations of Israel and only one of Iraq?
“Also - just yesterday on like three different MSM outlets, they interviewed Cindy and immediately interviewed mothers who do believe their children died for a good reason in Iraq. So they are covering both sides of this issue. Or at least trying to.”
OK. That could be good. I’m glad, if they are doing stuff like that. Thank you.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 8:44 am - August 16, 2005
“She wouldn’t be making a public spectacle if Bush would meet with her. That is all she has asked for. If the media chooses to cover her, so be it.”
Yes — by parking her butt in a chair and holding up big signs outside the President of the United States’s house during a time when anyone with half a brain knows that there are going to be literally hundreds of reporters there — and you say she didn’t WANT media coverage?
Either she’s the most hopelessly-naive person on the planet, or she had every intention of making a public spectacle of herself. It’s like my dad always used to say….the danger of wearing a Hawaiian shirt to a cocktail party is that a lot more people will notice you — and the fact that you left your fly open.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2005 @ 8:52 am - August 16, 2005
I’m NOT arguing that Bush should meet with her. I’m merely stating that was her mission. I’m not advocating that Bush sit with every mother who has lost a child.
And NDT - I have not advocated outing anyone. I have actually many times said I don’t see a point to it, although I feel little sympathy for anyone who does. And wouldn’t your argument that karma bounces back also mean that you do not think Cindy should be criticized as a public figure if you also feel someone being outed as gay who happens to be a public figure is wrong? In any case, you’re attributing comments to me that shouldn’t be attributed to me. I don’t care if people are outed personally, but I don’t advocate people doing it either. I don’t believe one can be outed unless one has done something that would allow someone to say they are gay. And if you don’t want to be outed, my suggestion is that you don’t do things people would find out about and point out that you did. But all in all, I don’t think outing as a practice is respectable. But I feel that way more so because I think it’s pointless, not because I feel any overwhelming sympathy for those who are outed.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 8:58 am - August 16, 2005
I understand that since the “Mother Meehan” title didn’t stick, she now wants to be known as “St. Joan of Crawford,” which sounds pretty gay to me.
Comment by V the K — August 16, 2005 @ 9:09 am - August 16, 2005
“I’m NOT arguing that Bush should meet with her. I’m merely stating that was her mission.”
Her professed mission.
Her actual mission, of course, was/is to get publicity for her anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war, and anti-Israel viewpoints. Which she has done brilliantly…meanwhile distracting from (if not erasing) the nobility of the Iraq war and her own son’s actions in it.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 10:03 am - August 16, 2005
Britton, your posts on this thread demonstrate what a truly a sad and disturbed individual you are. I can’t imagine what trauma occured in your life to have left you so addled. I can only presume that you are not an American citizen.
Now, as for my 2 cents on Cindy Sheehan, this is not going to be pretty so you may wish to leave the room. Yep, it’s true that she lost - not “gave” - her son in the War on Terror. That is a fact of life, and of war. I’m sure Casey Sheehan was well aware of that when he enlisted. But does his grieving mother blame the terrorists who killed him? ‘Course not. Using typical ultra-liberal reverse logic, she blames Bush - and let’s not forget dirty Israel, too!
And yes, she has every right to say whatever she wants about the war, Bush, or any other subject. No one can deny that. However, the fact that her son died in the WOT does NOT immunize her from the most extreme criticism because she is actively trying to hurt OUR countrymen who are still over in Iraq and Afghanistan defending a bunch of 14th century cave dwellers, most of whom would surely rather see us all dead for being: 1. Americans, 2. gay, 3. Christians/Jews (excepting the God-haters here) or any combination of these.
But how exactly is she hurting OUR countrymen you ask? Clearly, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy overseas and trying to divide the citizenry for the benefit of our enemies here at home. Even the most feeble-minded idiot (see above) can understand that to criticize so harshly and unfairly our military efforts and the commander in chief during a time of war (!) only aids in the perception that America’s committment to defeating the terrorists is fractured. That’s what Lord Haw Haw, Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose did in WWII and each of those characters were roundly despised for their attempts to wreck the Allied cause. In fact, I believe at least one of them was even executed afterwards.
Similarly, the only thing her antics will accomplish is to embolden the enemy and make it more likely that some other soldier’s parents will receive the same terrible news that she did. Oh, that and make the America-hating, radical Left here at home squeal with glee because they somehow think that a larger body count will somehow result in poor poll numbers for Bush and the GOP. And that’s just sick.
Of course I’m sorry that she lost her son, and I’m particularly sad that he died in the way he did. But I’m for America first and foremost and there is NO WAY I’m going to give this pathetic, Jew-hating Moonbat any more quarter than that. Just like anybody else, moms can be f’ing a-holes and this particular one is truly a First Class Mother, dead son notwithstanding. To me, she’s no better than Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, or the late Rachel Corrie, alleged “Americans” all, and I for one do not wish her well.
Comment by glisteny — August 16, 2005 @ 10:29 am - August 16, 2005
Glisteny - as I’ve stated before, your posts are void of any credibility based on your continued rude and ridiculous personal attacks on this blog so I honestly could give a rat’s ass what you think about me.
As always, my criticism has been personal attacks on Sheehan as a mother. You can criticize her up and down for whether you agree with her viewpoint on the WOT and the war in Iraq, but you have no right to tell her the right way to mourn the loss of her child or that she is betraying him in any way. People mourn in their own way. I don’t care if she is doing it for publicity. That doesn’t change the fact she lost her son and I’d say that if anyone has a right to stand up and challenge the government that initiated the events that lead to her son’s death, it’s her. And she isn’t trying to divide the citizenry my friend. The citizenry is already divided.
I don’t certainly pretend to represent the “left” here. On a lot of issues, I am not on the “left”. However, I don’t think a higher body count makes anyone happy. If anything, it certainly frustrates me that it’s been several years and we’ve made little headway in getting control of the situation. Patience is unfortuantely a virtue lost on many Americans, much to the detriment of Bush’s poll numbers, but that certainly doesn’t mean that frustration and a lack of confidence equates to glee or joy in seeing that Americans are being killed. I have a cousin serving in Iraq and grew up in a military family. I respect people who serve their country. I think Cindy Sheehan’s son is a hero for doing what was asked of him and paying the price for it. I feel sad for her because it has to be the most hopeless feeling in the world to know you’ll never see your child again. That does NOT mean that I MUST shut up and not question whether we are making the most intelligent decisions regarding our War on Terror which somehow landed us in Iraq.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 11:00 am - August 16, 2005
Glisteny - the Islamofascists also hate the “God-haters” and all atheists.
This is a war against Western Civilization in all its manifestations, not just those you find admirable. They also hate Hindus, Buddhists, indeed all religions not Muslim.
Comment by Aristomedes — August 16, 2005 @ 11:04 am - August 16, 2005
Well, that’s the second half. What she’s calling for - immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq - is just dumb. It would mean defeat and slaughter for *the Iraqi people* in the face of their own criminals (leftover Baathist regime elements) and foreign terrorists.
And then, as Iraq once again becomes a hotbed of terrorism (as it was under Saddam) - even more American lives will be lost in some future 9-11. So, she’s working for the loss of American lives.
Now, I *don’t* say she’s doing it out of pure anti-Americanism. It’s possible. But I would rather say she might be doing it just from a combination of (1) gullibility, (2) unchecked rage, and (3) praise / attention / manipulation from certain far Left extremists now surrounding her, who in a few cases are deeply anti-American.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 11:07 am - August 16, 2005
Joe, how politically correct of you.
I tend to agree with you. I just don’t think the personal attacks some people are making on her in regards to the type of mother she is are very fair considering most people making such remarks are not in the position she is in. Just seems extremely distasteful to me. I would also say those on the other side of the fence have used fallen soldiers as pawns in their ideological warfare by saying that any criticism of the war in Iraq or President Bush equates to aiding terrorists and means you are “against the troops.” Which is a load of crap.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 11:29 am - August 16, 2005
“And wouldn’t your argument that karma bounces back also mean that you do not think Cindy should be criticized as a public figure if you also feel someone being outed as gay who happens to be a public figure is wrong? ”
Absolutely. I think people should stick to the issue she brings up and not worry about her personal life.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2005 @ 11:46 am - August 16, 2005
“I just don’t think the personal attacks some people are making on her in regards to the type of mother she is are very fair considering most people making such remarks are not in the position she is in.”
That is a null statement, to me. She’s out there doing what she’s out there doing. As her “victim” so to speak (part of the public she is trying to influence), I have a human right to notice what she’s doing and name it.
I don’t know all about Casey’s beliefs, true - but his actions speak very loudly - when the rubber met the road, i.e. when his life was at stake, he supported the U.S. efforts in Iraq. She is, in point of fact, explicitly dishonoring what Casey and others like him did with their lives (claiming they haven’t died for a noble cause). And making the whole thing “about her”. I can’t pretend to not notice; sorry.
“…those on the other side of the fence…saying that any criticism of the war in Iraq or President Bush equates to aiding terrorists and means you are “against the troops.””
I’ve never said that. (I criticize Bush.) Also, to my knowledge, GP and GPW have never said that. Your operative word is “any”. That’s a straw man, Britton.
What I say is: Those who seek to undermine what our troops our doing in Iraq - those who criticize Bush and the war **in ways that are slanderous or false, for the purpose of** inducing American demoralization and defeat - yes, **those** people are in fact aiding the terrorists and against the troops they claim to support. That’s not a load of crap; rather it’s the twisted, ugly truth.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 12:04 pm - August 16, 2005
“seek to undermine” is very subjective. I might not like or agree with America’s mission in Iraq is or how it is being carried out, but that does not mean I’m seeking to undermine. I don’t know many people who seek American demoralization and defeat. You may want to think that is what critics of Bush and the war in Iraq are doing, but that isn’t necessarily true because you believe it. that’s a bit of a straw man as well if you ask me.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 12:08 pm - August 16, 2005
It isn’t subjective. I’ve given 2 criteria for it:
– That the criticism being leveled is, in fact, slanderous or false.
– That the slanderous/false criticism is being made as part of a larger argument to induce immediate American withdrawal. (With consequent victory for the “insurgency”, the Baathists and jihadists.)
Example: “Bush lied!” That sort of criticism. Cindy Sheehan has made herself a key part of the “Bush lied!” crowd, now.
What sort of criticism do my criteria leave room for?
– Criticisms which have some truth to them, and in which the criticizer on some level does want the Baathists/jihadists to be defeated. Constructive criticism.
It’s your place to answer for yourself as to whether that’s what you are up to.
I’m willing to assert my belief (as so much evidence for it has accumulated) that that *isn’t* what the Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moores, etc. of the world are up to.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 12:19 pm - August 16, 2005
P.S. so just to sum up - It’s the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. There are some folks out there who want American defeat (by their own words) and are engaged in destructive criticism. As a gay patriot, I condemn that.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 12:25 pm - August 16, 2005
I feel so sorry for Cindy. The way she’s been abused and used by the Left. And what makes it worse is the callous way in which they’re so blatently exploiting her as a mother.
Where was all this compassion from the Left over a mother’s “rights” back when the issue was the active killing of an invalid young woman?
Britton: Let’s hear your position on the “pretty unique relationship a mother has with her child, even in comparison with other familial relationships” when it comes to actually trying to keep someone alive… bet it’s a tough one for you to square with this.
For what noble cause was Mary Schindler’s daughter killed? What recourse does she have as she grieves?
Just a thought.
Comment by njz — August 16, 2005 @ 12:38 pm - August 16, 2005
I guess the subjective part is what your definition of “defeat” is. If saying you think the troops should come home, that may not to you mean defeat while to others it would signal a defeat. I guess my questions surround, when will we declare a “victory” and bring our troops home? What is the litmus test for when we are victorious or defeated? Where is the plan? I don’t think we will necessarily meet any deadline or guideline or standard we give ourself for when we can suggest that Iraq can start ruling itself, but it doesn’t hurt to have some expectation of when we can get out of there. As much as I’d like to say let’s stay til the job is done, I think THAT type of rhetoric is very unpatriotic and completely “against” the troops who unfortunately for them are away from their families and loved ones. I think the issue for many is that there are no answers and no one seems to listening to the questions being raised. The only answers we get are these broad and completely useless statements that “withdrawal now means defeat” or “talking about withdrawing our troops aides our enemies and emboldens the terrorists.” Where is the proof of that? Why is it so wrong to want to know when we can really allow Iraqis to rule their own country and other sons and daughters serving can return to their families? I’m over the whole argument about whether the war was justified. I don’t think it was, but that certainly didn’t stop it from happening. I can rant and rave about whether I think Bush “lied” or not, but it doesn’t change the stark reality that we did invade Iraq. But I absolutely refuse to be labeled a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer or anti American or against the troops because I think we are not in control of the situation and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Or even what does a true victory look like?
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 12:45 pm - August 16, 2005
The litmus test for victory or defeat in Iraq is:
– Successful elections under a new Constitution.
– Iraqi native forces sufficiently numerous, trained and willing to be able to assume their own security duties and crush the remainder of their country’s Baathist and foreign-jihadist insurgents.
President Bush has laid these criteria out in several speeches now.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 12:50 pm - August 16, 2005
Are you seriously trying to relate Terri Schiavo with this? Okay, here we go, I feel terrible for Terri Schiavo’s mother. What an awful thing to have happen for both Terri and her mother. I’d certainly wish that on no person and I certainly don’t blame Terri’s mother for her reaction at the prospect of losing her daughter. I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same if it were my child. HOWEVER, I believe that Terri Schiavo’s husband had the legal right to make the decision he did and to say otherwise invites the notion that the government should be involved in making those decisions for us. I dont’ agree with that. And there were PLENTY on the right who felt that the government had to right to intercede in the Terri Schiavo case. Mary Schindler had the right to grieve any way she wanted for her daughter and to fight to keep her alive. That does not however mean she had the legal right to make that decision. Legal rights are not the discussion with Cindy Sheehan. I think Cindy has the LEGAL right to protest the war. I think she has the personal right to grieve the loss of her child and honor his memory how she sees fit. I don’t think the two cases have anything to do with each other frankly.
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 12:51 pm - August 16, 2005
P.S. And from what the milblogs are saying (but I agree you wouldn’t know this from the MSM, and should not be expected to): progress on both points is such that significant troop withdrawals are likely to begin in early 2006.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 12:52 pm - August 16, 2005
“I think Cindy has the LEGAL right to protest the war.”
But of course she does.
And that fact, in itself, proves how wrong her position is. (Think about it. Hmm, Maybe America is worth defending, by trying to build a democracy in Iraq and fight a bunch of terrorists over there.)
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 12:54 pm - August 16, 2005
Then what is the timeline for making this happen? How long will that take? We can set that as the goal but if we miss the mark or don’t do what we should to get to that goal, is it wrong to question our actions?
And just to point out - I am not an advocate for immediate troop withdrawal. We’re there, we need to finish the job. I want to know when that is going to happen and if it’s not happening, why?
Comment by Britton — August 16, 2005 @ 12:55 pm - August 16, 2005
The Iraqi constitution and elections are on a timeline. Turning over sovereignty to Iraqis in June 2004 - happened on time. Provisional elections in Jan 2005 - happened on time. (Bush was much criticized for letting those go ahead.) Completing a constitution in August 2005 - they had some deadline yesterday that they missed, but hopefully they will recover; we’ll have to see. Next set of elections - I can’t quote the date from memory; maybe one of us can look it up.
The training of Iraqi native security forces is also on a timeline, that I can’t quote from memory. This goes back to the whole “MSM not covering the war” thing. I should know this stuff (in broad outline), without having to Google it. In World War 2, MSM would have covered plans, strategies, timelines and progress. Why aren’t they? - But I digress. Milblogs generally say that the training of Iraqi forces bogged down last year, but is on track now.
What it sounds like you’re looking for, and what Bush won’t give at this point, is a definite U.S. withdrawal timeline. Why won’t he? (Or, to put it another way, why would it be disastrous and wrong if he did?) Because U.S. withdrawal should be dependent on completion of the other 2 timelines above. Anything else, is saying “We capitulate…we’re giving up”.
When the other 2 timelines have hit their next milestones, we’ll probably start hearing from Bush about a U.S. withdrawal timeline.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 1:15 pm - August 16, 2005
Britton: I never questioned either woman’s (or M. Schiavo’s) LEGAL right to whatever they did or were trying to do, etc. Frankly, that you choose to argue this on legal terms calls into question your dedication to the morality of it all. If the best you have is that somebody has or does not have the LEGAL right to do something, it makes your argument kinda flimsy, I think.
Case in point, medical pot is morally the right thing (IMO), while LEGALLY it’s not. (There are many similar arguments, but we can leave the “The Law is an Arse” argument to the Freshmen in their ethics class.)
My point is: Where was this deference and respect from the left when they were trying to kill Schindler’s daughter? All of a sudden, Casey and Cindy have (as you put it) a relationship that trumps “other familial relationships” (including the rest of his family) due to how “pretty unique” it is. All I’m asking is: the law aside, ethically what is so “pretty unique” about Sheehan’s that makes it more valuable or have more moral weight than Schindler’s for her daughter (who, by the way, was still alive at the time).
I think the answer, unfortunately for Cindy, is that the Left has chosen to fall on her side of this as opposed to the Schindlers who fell on the wrong side (says the Left) of that issue.
I say “unfortunately for Cindy” becuase after this is over (after Bush’s month in Crawford), and the press leaves Texas, Cindy will be left without a husband, and without a family or any support due to how those who have been exploiting her have driven them away from her. Not easy for a grieving mother.
Comment by njz — August 16, 2005 @ 1:35 pm - August 16, 2005
#46 continuation…
Now - does all that mean I think Bush is the most competent President ever? *No.* Are there some things we could/should be doing better right now? *Probably.* Could another President / administration have done the whole Iraq war better from the beginning? *Maybe.* Did the Democrats offer us such a candidate in 2004? *Hell no.*
The Democrats could have had my vote in 2004, if they put up someone who was credible on national security - someone who agreed with Bush that the War on Terror has to be “forward”, not just “defensive” - someone who was clearly going to be committed to seeing the Iraq war through - someone willing to reject and condemn the Michael Moore / Moveon.org wing of the Democratic Party. - But they didn’t.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 2:03 pm - August 16, 2005
Some Asshat above said: “…but you have no right to tell her the right way to mourn the loss of her child or that she is betraying him in any way. People mourn in their own way. ”
I’m not telling her how to ‘mourn’ her son, obscene as her method may be. What I AM telling her - AND YOU, TOO - is to shut her f’ing trap and stop giving aid and comfort to OUR enemies while we’re at war! And that is entirely MY right as an American citizen who’s neighbors are over there right now with absolutely no indication of an imminent withdraw.
So Cindy Sheehan can grieve and grieve and grieve until her dirty Birkenstocks rot under her feet but the second she takes her personal drama into the broader realm of public discourse, and more importantly, the second she puts MY country and MY countrymen and women in harm’s way, then she’s fair game. As are you and the rest of the Blame-America-First crowd who aren’t fit to breathe the same oxygen as Casey Sheehan, who is the real hero in all of this anyway and not his mentally-incapacitated mom. As if you would even know a hero if you saw one anyway.
Comment by glisteny — August 16, 2005 @ 2:39 pm - August 16, 2005
Ignoring glisteny’s post, because I’m not sure if the predominant emotion there is more like “anger”, or if it shades into “hatred”. I can understand the anger part.
Christopher Hitchens, a pro-war but essentially left-wing writer, in a Slate article quotes Cindy Sheehan as saying the following:
[Casey Sheehan gave his life] “for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11.”
Let’s take that in. I don’t know Hitchens’ source, but unless you want to tell me he and Slate mis-representing Cindy (which I don’t find likely), I think we should take it as settled that Cindy Sheehan is an Israel-hater, a Bush-hater (attacking his patriotism in a profound way), and potentially delusional into the bargain.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 5:53 pm - August 16, 2005
Oh - and let’s not forget, is implicitly making her son out to be a total dumbbell who didn’t know what he was doing, when he re-upped for Iraq so voluntarily and (by many accounts) intentionally.
Comment by joe — August 16, 2005 @ 5:54 pm - August 16, 2005
or that she is betraying him in any way.
How about her cozying up to Code Pink who gave $600,000 to the other side? Isn’t it possible some of that money might have been used to kill her son or somebody else’s?
How about her idolizing Lynne Stewart who passed on Fatwas from Shaik Rahman (sp?)? Isn’t it possible that that action might have something to do with her son’s death or somebody else’s?
If I had a family member killed in Iraq, would I be justified in saying that you are the sorry son of a bitch who killed them? Could I blame you and make all kinds of wild slander against you and expect no retribution? Is accountability thrown out the window because her son died?
Sorta like the analogy I saw the other day of the old SNL skit where the guy trashes this dudes apartment at a party all the while whining that his parents were mauled by a bear.
Comment by EMT907 — August 16, 2005 @ 11:05 pm - August 16, 2005
Furthermore, I think a better question would be why lord BJ refused to supply the men in the Mog? Why did he kill them and why did he drag their bodies through the streets? Why did he cut their pay and cut their funding to the point they couldn’t afford to buy bullets they needed?
I’m feeling a road trip to Chappaqua coming on. Who wants to gimme money for that gig?
Then again, I might suffer the same fate as Buddy, Vince Foster or Ron Brown.
Comment by EMT907 — August 17, 2005 @ 1:27 am - August 17, 2005
lord BJ…that good! Also have to ask why lord BJ had Al Qaida info since 1996 yet did nothing, why Jamie “the Wall’ Gorelick was a 9/11 Commissioner when she should have been a witness, why lawyers serving the lord BJ Adminstration in 2000 prevented Able Danger from seeing light of day?
What is important is that Cindy Sheeham is a political media score whore.
Comment by syn — August 17, 2005 @ 3:55 am - August 17, 2005
To go back to NJZ for a moment - Don’t ask me about why “the left” is doing anything. I don’t represent them. I’m my own person. Also, I never said that Cindy’s relationship with her son trumped any other familial relationships. I merely said that the bond between a mother and child is biologically and significantly different than between any other family member and this child. It just is and that is evident in just about every other species on the planet, not just humans. Therefore, cut the bitch some slack for being a bit emotional and outraged that her son is dead. I would guarantee 100% that many of your own mothers would feel the same way.
As for Joe, et. al., I’m sure she realizes her son made the choice to go because it was a sense of duty and pride and by all means, we can honor that. But if you believe the war in Iraq was unjustified, regardless of the fact that your son was doing his job, you would still likely resent the person who sent him to Iraq where he was killed. You may not understand that simply because you think the war is justified.
And joe, don’t worry, I don’t even read glisteny’s comments anymore. I know I’m not anti-American or a traitor. I want Iraq to be a success even though I never thought we should have gone there. I’m not anti-American because I see in the news (way down in the news where you have to dig to find it) that millions of Africans were just displaced from their homes because their leader decided their delapidated “ghettos” were an eyesore, so he tore them down and kicked them out. I also know that this country will never do a damn thing about it. So pardon me if I question the idea that the liberation of the Iraqi people from a horrible dictator was the reason why 1,800 Americans are dead. And please don’t come back with, oh you’d rather the Iraqis be under Saddam, you think they are better off. Of course I don’t. I think it will take time for them to recover from this change, but overall I think they will certainly be better off without him (although I do worry that we’ve only created another Iran). That is not to say however that I believe that is why we invaded Iraq. I just don’t. I’m sorry. And you can pat yourself on the back after for how you’ve helped someone, but you show your true colors when you ignore even more heinous and treacherous crimes against humanity that are committed in parts of the world we never seem to care about. And that isn’t to blame Bush…that is to say that all of us don’t care enough. So I just don’t buy it when the argument is used that we liberated the Iraqi people so this was all justified.
Comment by Britton — August 17, 2005 @ 7:13 am - August 17, 2005
Very well-said, Britton.
However, I would simply respond that, even though our actions in Iraq haven’t been perfect, they have been action. As you rightly pointed out, there isn’t enough outrage in this country over things like the destruction of homes in Zimbabwe for sheerly-political reasons. Bluntly put, unless we are outraged and unless we start prodding the UN to act, nothing is going to happen — just like Sudan, just like Rwanda, etc.
And I think, ultimately, as much as I dislike being in this role, it is in the best interests of the United States to act when we see injustice on a grand scale. For instance, had we been willing to confront the Taliban directly, I think we could have made enormous strides towards disrupting al-Qaeda; perhaps not enough to stop the 9/11 attacks, but enough to significantly impair them and others. The lesson of the past few years is that repressive, intolerant, hatemongering countries breed terrorists. Bush has obviously seen the light on this one, realizing that “nation-building”, as distasteful as it is, is the ultimate way of assuring our country’s security.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2005 @ 8:01 am - August 17, 2005
NDT - thank you. We at least agree that the US, if it is going to brag about being a nation of liberators, we back it up and we do so in places other than just Iraq. I would also like to at least hear Bush or his Administration viciously condemn what is happening in Zimbabwe. It would be nice to know what is happening there is not going unnoticed. I’m sure it isn’t, but Americans won’t care unless we think we should care. And when our leaders ignore it, we ignore it.
Comment by Britton — August 17, 2005 @ 8:27 am - August 17, 2005
Britton-
We absolutely should follow up our verbal support of freedom with action — but isn’t that what we’re doing?
It’s true we haven’t invaded every outpost of tyranny and liberated every oppressed people — and it’s also true that we selected which ones to liberate first for reasons that had nothing to do with which ones were the sites of the worst oppression. But how could it possibly be otherwise?
The incredible frustration of conservatives with the MSM and liberal opinion on things like this arises when the MSM is much louder about things that are going wrong than about all the good things we are doing, and then liberals complain that we ought to be doing them — things we actually are doing.
Case in point: “I would also like to at least hear Bush or his Administration viciously condemn what is happening in Zimbabwe.”
This administration has done so — the MSM has just judged that it’s less important to tell you that, than to let you know that that blond girl in Aruba is still missing, or that rapper Sean Combs is now just “Diddy” — because the “P.” was getting in between him and his fans.
Here are some Statements on Zimbabwe from Condoleeza Rice, the Administration’s chief representative on foreign policy. She calls it an “outpost of tyranny,” slammed the recent election as corrupt, while praising the people of Zimbabwe for their efforts, and referred to the recent house-demolitions as “tragic” and “criminal”.
It’s not unnoticed by the Administration.
Comment by Clint — August 17, 2005 @ 9:52 am - August 17, 2005
Britton, while I appreciate the sentiments of many responders here who have answered your #13 broadside… you asked “who the hell are you (Matt) to determine what honors” Casey Sheehan’s memory?
Who the Hell am I? Well, I’m one of hundreds of million of Americans who have that opportunity to determine what honors her son given that Mrs Sheehan has crossed into the public arena while shamelessly seeking protection as a “grieving mother of a slain solider”. I will not tolerate someone like you using the silly notion that we “can’t understand her grief” -crap. We can. It’s not unique. And other parents have done far better honoring their son or daughter than this publicity hound is doing –or the LibLefties have done.
Go back and read about the pornography of grief and the MSM’s appetite for it.
Britton at 13: Matt, Who the hell are you to determine what honors Cindy Sheehan’s son?
Who the Hell am I? I’m one of tens of millions of former veterans who have the standing to comment –maybe more than the general public– given that I DID serve in the military, was in combat for 11 long months, and served as expected of me by my enlistment, the emploment contract I agreed to with the US Govt, and because I expected to “get” something for my service or employ –which I did. It’s a job/service Britton. Casey Sheehan and I did it VOLUNTARILY. Did I think I’d go to war? Nope, but it happened. And everyone I knew were pretty clear on what “being a soldier” meant. Pure and simple.
Who the Hell am I? I’m someone who has many close friends now serving in theatre and it pisses me off royally when I see Cindy Sheehan using her son’s service to dishonor our elected leader in hostile countries which air Al Jerezza or CNN or the BBC or the CBC. This whole exercise of hers is nothing but a publicity stunt.
Shame on her. SHAME ON HER for helping our enemies abroad use her images and vapid protest to recruit new insurgents. SHAME ON HER for helping the LibLeft undercut America’s resolve to win the WOT. SHAME ON HER for hiding behind the grief of a slain soldier’s mom if people question her integrity or motives. SHE IS CONTEMPTIBLE. Many (maybe most) who served would tell you she’s a soldiers’ nightmare come to life –ie, your parent dishonoring your service for cheap political grandstanding.
In her son’s memory and the memory of all those who have honorably served, I hold her in contempt.
And Britton, that’s who the Hell I am.
Your statement in #13 of “She has every right to do what she is doing and frankly I don’t care if the left is exploiting her” tells me volumes about your sense of honor. Frankly, I don’t care about what you think since you DONT find this publicity exercise patently offensive.
We can all hold opinions in America and express them freely, but that doesn’t include undercutting public resolve in time of war –or giving aid to the enemy. We learned that lesson painfully when the Right was trying to get America out of Kennedy/Johnson’s VietNam War.
Britton, the sad truth is that citizens like you never learn. Stick to abortion rights, prayer in the schools, and stopping the ReligRight, ok? When it comes to honoring the military service of a soldier, you don’t know JACK if you can’t comprehend the error in your earlier statements.
Comment by Matt-Michigan — August 17, 2005 @ 11:26 am - August 17, 2005
Excellent post, Matt. I see that you ‘get it’ entirely and thank you for putting this sentiment into terms that are apparently more clear to some people here than I’ve been able to accomplish (although I don’t ever believe my posts are anything but direct and to the point.) Don’t ever let anyone prevent you from expressing your patriotism openly, aggressively, and without apology. I certainly don’t.
Comment by glisteny — August 17, 2005 @ 1:57 pm - August 17, 2005