From NRO’s Media Blog:
“Not Once Did They Ever Ask Me If They Could Use My Son’s Name”
On CNN’s Your World Today, Gary Qualls, the father of Louis W. Qualls, held up the white cross bearing his son’s name, which he pulled out of the ground where Cindy Sheehan and her followers had placed it without his permission.
He told YWT anchor Jim Clancy, “Not once did they ever ask me if they could use my son’s name.” He spoke of his son’s sacrifice, of how his son believed in what he was doing, and how Cindy Sheehan doesn’t speak for him.
How many other names on Cindy Sheehan’s crosses are the names of soldiers who would find her politics despicable?
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com
When are all of the Cindy Sheehan nay sayers going to wake up and smell the coffee? It is high time that the voices of dissent grow stronger and louder.. It seems to me that America is continuing to slide down the slippery slope towards total fascism.
Well, it seems to me that you’re just another idiotic Moonbat lashing out at his own country. How ’bout that? You people toss around the terms “fascism”, “Nazi”, and “Hitler” all too easily. If you want to understand what real fascism is, you only need to talk to a Holocaust survivor and then decide whether your inane comparison holds water.
Apparently, Hal needs to speak with Scott Rudolph
I met Scott Randolph. I’ve got reindeer on the brain, apparently.
Still, Gay Patriot Cindy Sheehan has sacrificed more in this war than you or a 1,000 bloggers.
By John’s “logic,” only Yoko Ono and Courtney Love are allowed to have opinions on music.
(What a horrible world that would be.)
John-
Others keep making this point, but it doesn’t seem to have sunk in:
Cindy Sheehan lost more in this war than most others. Her son sacrificed more. There’s an important difference.
But aside from that — keep going with your argument. What’s the next line? Because whatever it is, it’s there that you’re going to have a problem.
Also… you need a comma between “gay patriot” and “Cindy Sheehan” — unless there’s another reason her husband’s divorcing her and she’s not not actually an American citizen.
Cindy continues to spit on her child’s grave because she’s “mad” at Bush. I’d have some respect for her if she left her dead son out of it, a son who enlisted at the age of 20 and then reenlisted knowing could be sent to fight.
Since my son is going to join the Army in a few years, do I have the right to criticize Mother Moonbat for making the world more dangerous, and thereby increasing the risk to his life? Do those of us who are concerned about soldiers currently serving have a right to criticize Mother Moonbat for encouraging the enemy and thereby putting their lives at risk?
The difference between “loss” (passive; you did nothing) and “sacrifice” (active; an action you chose) seems lost on more and more clueless liberals, these days.
P.S. My point being, for any new people reading these comments: Casey Sheehan, not Cindy, is the one who made a brave and noble sacrifice for which we ought to be grateful.
towards total fascism.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Still, Gay Patriot Cindy Sheehan has sacrificed more in this war than you or a 1,000 bloggers.
And just how the hell do you know that, arrogant little prick? How do you know what we’ve done or what we’ve “sacrificed”?
How dare you presume that just because we aren’t whiney little bitches on TV every night that we haven’t done anything. You can take your arrogant ASSumption and cram it.
Joe-
It may have something to do with the cult of the victim, the impersonal-forces view of history, and the government-as-parent views also common among some liberals…
CINDY SHEEHAN “SACRIFICED” NOTHING. And don’t you ever forget it. To say that she ‘sacrificed’ her son would be to assume that her son’s life was her’s to give. It was not. If it was, then she is a murderer. It was Casey’s life and his alone, and I’m damn sure that he didn’t believe he would be ‘sacrificing’ it if it were lost.
Like the creep above who said our nation is sliding towards “fascism” – and whom I strongly suspect was the same person as this poster – you don’t even know the meaning of the words you bandy about so casually. And that’s why you are an ass.
And the desire to pervert language….to erode or evade all conceptual distinctions and clear thinking…..to keep the good-time rubber checks from bouncing; to make their subjective WISHES important or powerful somehow …..Oooh, now we’re getting into Ayn Rand territory….will stop 🙂
Wow, the comments on the post bear little resemblance to the actual post of the father who yanked his son’s memorial cross.
Members of the armed forces are public employees. As a public employee they automatically give up some personal rights to privacy. When I was a government employee, my name, work address, pay grade (my actual income) were all publicly available for perusal. Also, I was prohibited from certain forms of free speech. It goes with the job.
He may be indignant about the use of his son’s name but so is Matthew Sheppard’s mother whenever the conservative reverend Phelps uses it. Welcome to America.
Not to repeat myself BUT…what nerve it must have taken anti-American Medea Benjamin and her crew of anti-Christers to use the Christian symbol of the cross to memorialize fallen American soldiers all of whom were considered baby-killers by the very anti-Christers protesting everything American here in NYC just around this time last year.
What exactly does the anti-war movement stand for?
What I see is that everyone involved will go so far as to give up their own beliefs for a cause that has no substance or meaning. After four years of this nonsense, what I find so vile is that this behavior, intended or not, is aiding the Islamicfascist enemy whereby bringing more harm to America and her warriors.
Legally, Ms. Sheehan can use Corporal Qualls’s name. So what? It proves that she’s a user, that’s all.
Using the name of a fallen Marine who volunteered to fight in Iraq is in extremely poor taste, to put it mildly. Apparently Louis Qualls had always wanted be to a Marine, like his father. No wonder Mr. Qualls is so upset. The characterization of Marines simply as government employees is bizarre and creepy and incredibly disrespectful. When Marines enlist, they know they may be called upon to give their lives for this country. Not so USDA produce inspectors, who don’t get buried with full military honors at Arlington when they die.
What she did is every bit as indecent and grotesque as Reverend Phelps’s antics. Is this narcissistic woman somehow unable to let a 20-year-old man whom she never knew rest in peace? Does the woman have no shame?
RIP Louis Qualls.
Using his name may not be illegal, but it is immoral, unethical, and unscrupulous.
Of course, if we have learned anything about the left, it’s that they don’t give a damn about morals, ethics, or scruples.
“If it’s legal, it must be moral/ethical.”
Another liberal idiot.
Boy, there are some good writers here.
I enjoyed syn’s: What exactly does the anti-war movement stand for?….What I see is that everyone involved will go so far as to give up their own beliefs for a cause that has no substance or meaning.
And this by Butch was great: The characterization of Marines simply as government employees is bizarre and creepy and incredibly disrespectful. When Marines enlist, they know they may be called upon to give their lives for this country. Not so USDA produce inspectors, who don’t get buried with full military honors at Arlington when they die.
I say kudos to Gary Qualls; but he never should have been put in that situation by Cindy and others in the first place.
As a follow up, here’s one question that I have for those on the left siding with Cindy Sheehan:
Why are some so against religion in the public forum but NOT against Cindy and others putting ALL fallen warriors’ names on CROSSES? I’m sure that there are more than a few of those fallen who were not Christian. Would you assume to put ALL the names on Crescents? on Magen David? or any other religious symbols with which the person was not affiliated?
Why aren’t those on the left protesting this – which some might and some actually do consider offensive?
Chandler-
Not sure what your point is.
Cindy’s “friends” staged a protest around the compelling image of a grieving mother. A grieving father found the use of his son’s name in their teledrama to be one insult too many. And he said so.
Your response: They have a first amendment right to say that!
Sure they do. So does he. Did anyone suggest that they don’t? All that’s been pointed out, by that father and by those here, is that what they said was wrong, not to mention hurtful to precisely the people they claim to be speaking for.
How does pointing out their first amendment rights respond to this?
Clint
L: 2+2=5!!!
R: Um. Actually, you know, 2+2=4.
L: Shut up, you fascist!!!! I have a first amendment right here!!!!
R backs away slowly and rolls his eyes.
Your response: They have a first amendment right to say that!
clint
===========
No Clint, I never mentioned the constitution. These laws exist at both the federal and state levels. They have to do with transparent government. And as V-K said it is legal but not moral or ethical. And again issues of moralty and ethics are always relative. Opinions are like that.
🙂 A beautifully non-responsive “response”, thus proving Clint’s point for him.
“..issues of moralty and ethics are always relative…” A beautifully self-contradictory statement. 🙂 (Spot the ‘absolute’ in it)
so, if I may be permitted to extend Clint’s dialogue:
L: 2+2=5!!!
R: Well, don’t invoke my kid on that. Actually, you know, 2+2=4.
L: Shut up, you fascist!!!! I have a first amendment right here!!!!
R: backs away slowly and rolls his eyes.
L: How DARE you back away and roll your eyes? 2+2=5 in MY situation! All math is absolutely relative to the victim…me!
R: (20% amused, 80% stunned and appalled)
Wow. Its amazing the firestorm I started with my comment. Perhaps, I should have said “given up” or something else. Still, most of the posters on here a pussies who supported the war, but never served, and never sacrificed more than paying higher prices to fill up their car.
I supported the war, I served. Yeah, I criticize it now. But those who have lost more in this war (Cindy Sheehan with her sone, me with two friends killed in Iraq and 5 wounded) perhaps have a point of view that shouldn’t be drowned out by those who think they’re more patriotic because they support the President and Toby Keith.
One question, John…..how do you know so accurately that none of us have suffered the same types of losses? How do you know that none of us have had family or friends killed or wounded?
Is it because the theory is, if we did, we’d a) oppose the war and b) be running around arguing how our “victim” status gives our opinion more weight than others?
Hmm…so have you served North Dallas 30? Have you lost someone close to you in Iraq?
John –
Where and when did you serve?
Just for the record – I don’t support the war as such, and I never have. I support the troops.
To me, supporting the troops means: thanking them for their service, acknowledging the nobility of their actions and their cause, making donations when I can at http://www.AnySoldier.com, and helping (in however obscure or tiny a way) to create some kind of space for them to complete their mission, so their 1800 lives lost WILL NOT be in vain.
In the context of this thread, it also means my giving honor and gratitude to Casey Sheehan for the REAL sacrifice he made; not letting Cindy Sheehan’s public display of narcissism and ugly politics prevent me.
Warning Gay Patriots! Chickendove Alert!
Something I find extremely difficult to comprehend is someone saying they support the troops but not the Commander in Chief. But, as difficult as it might be for me, I cannot believe for one moment, a soldier currently serving in Iraq could accept under any circumstances the argument of “we support you” but not your commanding officers without suffering major, if not severe, morale problems.
The US is in Iraq and in there to win, nothing less, and we will prevail this time until the job is done.
Hmm…so have you served North Dallas 30? Have you lost someone close to you in Iraq?
I would phrase it this way, ohn; I could tell you, but were you interested in knowing, you would have asked in the first place. Since you seem to prefer drawing conclusions before you have all the facts, why should I interfere?
John should also kindly answer Frank’s question.
————————————
Where and when did you serve?
Comment by Frank IBC
I admire you, Joe, but supporting the troops also means supporting what they’re doing. You can’t half-ass it. You either do or you don’t. There’s no lovely liberal shade of gray.
John-
Thanks for your service.
I’d assume you have some personal experiences that most of us here lack — which might give you some insight into a discussion of the war. (Though in principle, it can go the other way as well — someone whose tour of duty had taken place stationed at Abu Ghraib, reporting to the convicted felons who used to be in charge of parts of it, would likely have a somewhat skewed notion of Iraq.)
However, (you knew there was a however coming, didn’t you?) your initial comment was nothing of the sort — no insight, no discussion. Just an emotional appeal. GP quoted an article quoting Gary Qualls disagreement with Cindy Sheehan. If you read the post, which I assume you did, surely you realize that Gary Qualls has suffered the same kind of loss as Mrs. Sheehan.
It certainly sounded like you thought GP should be embarassed to quote that disagreement because GP has (as far as we know) not suffered the same kind of loss. If that wasn’t what you meant, perhaps a clarification is in order — single sentence posts can often be misunderstood.
In fact, so far all you’ve done is attack posters because you believe they have not served, and suggested that GP is trying to “drown out” Cindy Sheehan. Can you seriously be suggesting that she hasn’t already received far more attention than her loss reasonably merits? Before you respond emotionally, consider how we could go about giving the same amount of attention to each parent and spouse and child of each of the 1,800 other dead soldiers… I know I’m not going to be able to remember all of their names, are you?
#38 – TGC, I thought that would have been self-evident from what I was saying.
John, in all deference to you for your service, it’s hard to disagree with what VtheK wrote above: “Using his name may not be illegal, but it is immoral, unethical, and unscrupulous.” If a parent or nearest-surviving family member do not wish for their dead kin’s name to be used in a way that they consider wrong, then we on the anti-Iraq War side should heed their wishes. Seems to me we could easily correct the situation by placing the memorial (cross or otherwise) with no name attached. Those on the pro-Iraq War side could also use similar discretion in describing why our people are dying and being maimed by the thousands now in Iraq. They often say that our people are dying there “fighting for our freedom”. They use that broad brush not because there’s actually any American “freedom” at stake in Iraq, but solely for its emotional value — then they turn around here and chide people like you for using “emotional argument”.
The “a soldier is just a postal worker/DMV bureaucrat in a different uniform” meme seems to be be catching on in posts by other left-wingers on other blogs.
It’ll be interesting to see how the public reacts as left-wingers become increasingly dismissive and then openly contemptuous of our troops and the heroidc job they do.
Whether or not John really served doesn’t change a thing. One can support the war and the troops for reasons of logic, reason, and patriotism whether one has served in the military or not. The same way one can support the cops in law enforcement without personally having been in the police. John and his ilk are just using a non-sequitur to try and silence debate that they don’t agree with.
Cindy Sheehan may have lost a son, but that doesn’t mean her politics are any less deranged. Yoko One and Courtney Love lost their husbands, but it doesn’t make their music any less godawful.
I notice that John hasn’t bothered to answer my question about where and when he served.
To continue from #40 because I think a couple folks missed the point yesterday…..
War is awful. No one goes around saying “Let’s have a war, baby! yeah!” except true Hitlerians and fools. Let’s make it clear now that if anyone does, I dis-associate myself from there here and now.
And the American military doesn’t go around saying “Let’s have a war, baby – yeah!”. That’s one of the things that makes the American military different from, and *better* than (morally as well as operationally) many of the other successful militaries in history.
Wars happen when they are thrust on us. Sadly, they are sometimes necessary. So, as Americans, we go to war sadly, and not a minute longer than necessary. President Bush has made that very clear.
I daresay not a single patriot here feels differently, AND/OR, ir they do feel differently, they are not patriots and don’t belong here.
That’s the real reason the “chickenhawk slur” is pathetic. It’s a deluded denial of the obvious. Americans, including President Bush, are good people. Sometimes mistaken – but fundamentally good, not evil. The far-left-wingers who spout the different slurs *are* America-haters, because they misunderstand America – in the most hateful way possible – and, so far as I can gather, they do it willfully. (At least it is impossible to distinguish their behavior from one doing it willfully.) It’s like having a stalker in your life where, no matter what you do, they pour out the sickest, most twisted possible things about you. Eventually you just have to recognize them as haters, and stop listening.
In terms of Iraq, the debate is over whether Iraq was, in fact, necessary or thrust upon us. I look at the facts and I say it was. Hateful left-wingers like to forget the whole context of dealing with Saddam over the years since 1991. Namely, they like to forget that the 1991 ware *never concluded* (no peace was ever signed), and that Saddam agreed to disarm as part of *cease-fire conditions* and to allow inspections to prove it. The reason a peace was never signed is that Saddam never stopped violating his cease-fire conditions. Saddam attacked American targets (including the World Trade Center in 1993, as the Clinton Justice Department determined) and systematically undermined the weapons inspectors (as they themselves reported). The second he did any of that, the 1991 war was back on – legally and morally.
But don’t tell that to any Hateful Leftie, because it so undermines their position and exposes their position as corrupt that they will turn desperate and throw any slur, or shout any shout, to deny it.
Their hero, President Clinton, simply “pretended” it wasn’t so – much like he did with al Qaeda terrorism. But pretense doesn’t change reality, and after 9-11, President Bush couldn’t afford the pretense, because of Saddam’s longstanding and growing links with terrorism – including Saddam’s harboring of Ansar al Islam, an al Qaeda subgroup, in northern Iraq. The latter is another fact that the Hateful Left does its best to deny, forget, or make sure no one remembers.
Anyway, President Bush still gave Saddam chance after chance to finally comply with his 1991 cease-fire obligations – and Saddam still didn’t – so President Bush rightly picked up and finished a war that, legally and morally, had never ended and was still on.
Am I happy about any of that? No. I wish it were otherwise. I’m just saying, “It is the way it is” and let’s support the troops in doing what they’re doing, because *that* is the path to bringing them home and to preventing their 1800 lives lost from being lost in vain (which, Hateful Left, sorry, they haven’t been).
Reader-
It’s good to see you writing something I can agree with. Bravo! (to the first half of your post)
#44 – Yes Frank – One would think that John would be proud to answer.
Joe, Frank-
Without drawing any conclusions about whether John really served his country (or whether John is actually a person, as opposed to a sock puppet)…
(a) It’s not impossible to come up with scenarios where he might be nervous to provide such details (e.g. he’s gay, and still getting Reservist pay…) and even more importantly (b) it wouldn’t be impossible to come up with enough details off the web to construct a superficially plausible bio.
Even if he does answer, I see this spinning off into an endless cycle of irrelevancy (e.g. “Oh, yeah? Well what color is the sauce in a Jamaican Pork Chop Chicken MRE??”)
More important to point out that whether or not he served is irrelevant to anything else he’s said so far.
(I do see the point of not letting someone falsely claim the mantle of a veteran, but the left does have examples of veterans and parents and children of dead soldiers who oppose the war — so if you concede their claim to absolute moral authority on these questions, it seems to add credence to the Cindy Sheehan media circus.)
P.S. Here is why you should always ASK the person (respectfully) where they served, whether their viewpoint is Right or Left:
http://www.wintersoldier.com
The angle of Winter Soldier I’m referring to here, is the angle where they actually rounded up non-veterans to claim they were veterans (and tell of atrocities, confirm the Left / anti-war viewpoint, etc.).
Military people tell me that non-veterans posing as veterans is fairly common in American society. For example, something like only 3-5% of the homeless claiming to be Vietnam vets, are Vietnam vets. Military people call them “wannabees”.
Now, I’m *NOT* saying that’s what John is, at all. I’m also not saying the Left has a monopoly on wannabees. I’m saying that, whether the person is Left or Right, it’s appropriate to ask them about their service and veteran status respectfully.
Hi Clint, I think our posts crossed in the mail.
I also think you’re overreacting a little. Nobody’s accused John of anything. And a veteran will be perfectly capable of saying for himself, “I can’t tell you because of DADT” or whatever.
I.e. their feelings aren’t that easily bruised.
Joe-
Good points. I didn’t think anyone was making accusations.
I guess my main point is what I stuck in the parenthetical note — it’s important to verify his bonafides if he claims “I was in Fallujah, and saw Colonel XXXX personally order us to massacre babies!!” or even “I was in Baghdad and my impression of Iraqi public opinion was even more dismal than what the MSM reports.” — but so far his only claim appears to be “I was there, you weren’t, so my opinion counts and yours doesn’t.” To respond to that with “prove you were there” seems to me to implicitly grant the validity of such logic.
That worries me because while many of the “Winter Soldier” folks were frauds, many really were veterans. And that didn’t make them right.
To respond to that with “prove you were there” seems to me to implicitly grant the validity of such logic.
Not to mention that with a few minutes of googling, I could come up with enough info to credibly create a web persona that could provide a “first hand” account of action in Iraq. On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.
Which is great because it means arguments or positions stand or fall on their own merits. A drop-out can make mincemeat out of a Ph.D if facts and logic are on his side.
John says: “Still, Gay Patriot Cindy Sheehan has sacrificed more in this war than you or a 1,000 bloggers.”
Oh? What did she sacrifice? It was Casey Sheehan’s decision to join the military, to go where sent, and to fight or flee or drop out because of conscience.
What exactly has Cindy Sheehan sacrificed? She didn’t send her son into the military, he made the decision himself! It’s called personal responsibility.
Not to mention that without her son’s bloody shirt to wave in the air, Cindy Sheehan is just another moonbat spouting deranged conspiracy theories about Israel controlling the government. Philosophically, she’s David Duke without the chemical peel.
You guys are right. I stand corrected.
In the anonymous made-up world of the Internet, any “I’m an authority and you’re not, so there” type of argument should be rejected out of hand. All arguments should have to stand or fall on their logical merits. So asking about anyone’s biography, for any reason, no matter how good or bad it is, becomes a distraction.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011422.php
To me, what’s interesting in the above is the point about how most of our troops in Iraq *want* to be there, and understand perfectly well what they are doing there.
That Casey Sheehan re-enlisted knowing and intending he would go to Iraq – and that he couldn’t bring himself to admit to his already Bush-crazed mom how much choice he had; how intentional it was – seems understandable.
“To me, she’s just Cindy” – Priceless quote.
All arguments should have to stand or fall on their logical merits. So asking about anyone’s biography, for any reason, no matter how good or bad it is, becomes a distraction.
Comment by joe
================
So, hypothetically, if a person runs a red light and tells a policeman that he did not run a red light and the policeman says thet he saw him do it, the fact that the person may be colorblind, and relative to what you would consider biographical information, he would be lying. Understand I am not questioning the fact he went through a red light, only to the truthfullness of his statement. Is he or isn’t he a liar? Is that silly biographical information relevent? Hypotheticall, of course.
=
Lord Chandler!
Its at least more relevant than the bandwidth you wasted asking your very petty question. If you have a point, can’t you just make it like everyone else who posted? Hint: The red light is the one on the top.
Lord Chandler!
Its at least more relevant than the bandwidth you wasted asking your very petty question. If you have a point, can’t you just make it like everyone else who posted?
====================
Vince TN,
Well, if that was too difficult to wrap yer knoggen round how bout this turn of events?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050823/ap_on_re_us/war_gravestones
=
Chandler-
Amazing stream-of-consciousness you’ve got going there.
You’re now outraged that the Pentagon offers a dead soldier’s relatives several options on tombstones, including the name of the war or battle he was killed in, if they want it?
I have absolutely no idea how you manage to get your pants on in the morning without being furious at the military-textile-complex that makes you put them on one leg at a time.
Chandler-
Amazing stream-of-consciousness you’ve got going there.
You’re now outraged that …
Clint
=======
Clint,
Did I say I was outraged? No. You people here are so fast to fan any flame. I posted it because it was interesting and relevant. Clint, you need a break, go pet the puppy.
=
furious at the military-textile-complex that makes you put them on one leg at a time.
Comment by Clint
==============
Again with the furious projection. As for the Military-textile-complex, we all know the hard won union battles were merely outsourced due to NAFTA and the free trade agreements with China. As a norther liberal how could I be but amused that the loss of all those southern textile jobs has resulted in high quality buck a pair socks from China.
Very nice
Boxing Match
Hair Length Medium Style
WOW your amasing!