A Noble Cause

FP -

You are looking at only one side of the story.

It is true that Cindy has the right to ask her questions. But by soing so in such a public and political manner she has made herself the legitimate subject of public discussion and analysis. And people have the right to ask "Why is she doing this?"

I personally think Cindy already knows why her son died in Iraq. I believe that she find the answer unsatisfactory. But she continues to ask the question. Why?

Look at some of her public statements regarding the administration:

"In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."

and

"America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for."

and

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush."

- http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm

To me, her words speak for themselves. She is a far-Left radical who has an ax to grind, and her son's death is giving her a platform to further her agenda.

She has every right to do this. But I think it is disengenious to pretend she is doing all of this for the sole reason that she is greiving for her son and doesn't know the answers to her questions.

If the people who actually pay the price for our freedom are not allowed to speak, then none of us have the right to speak.

I support her right to speak, form a peaceful protest, and to pursue her right to seek redress of grievances from her government.

I also admire her determination. I grew up in Texas and sitting out there in August isn't my idea of fun at all - not even close.

XT

1) The President cannot talk with every single American who wants an audience with him. Just impossible and unreasonable to expect this. It is also unreasonable to expect the President to meet with all the parents who have lost sons and daughters in any war time situation.

2) Let's not make much ado about extremists. Let's also not put their extreme actions in a context where it reflects the majority of the country or half of the country, as you compare them to when you say, "underscores the division in this country. Some people send flowers and food or offer the demonstrators a place to camp. Others shoot bullets into the air (in preparation for dove hunting, of course...how ironic) or drive over the rows of crosses". The "division" in this country is between people who help people or people who drive vehicles over crosses? I think this comment is overstated.

Is what she suffered tragic? Yes, no less than the other parents who have lost sons and daughters in this quagmire we call Iraq.

Regardless of anyone's stance on Iraq, I think your comments are just comments meant to debase the President in what I see as an extreme and unreasonable request of a man in his position. Even if this was a Democratic President I'd feel the same way.

This is question she's already had the opportunity to answer. There are hundreds of families who haven't spoken to President Bush ONCE and she wants a second? This is quite selfish if you ask me. What makes her grieving any worse than anothers?

I'm in the Army and fought in Iraq. I lost friends in Iraq. I've worked feverishly to save someone as they slowly died in my hands. I know what she's going through. I haven't lost a son, but I've lost many "brothers."

The left would have you believe that this war is unjust and illegal. How is enforcing UN Sanctions authorized by multiple nations, including France, Germany, and Russia illegal? They didn't protest the war until it was time to enforce those resolutions, an action only the United States had the guts to enforce.

Saddam was financing terrorism and it's been widely proven, though the mainstream media would have you forget that. They'd also have you believe that just because I support Bush and the War right now (not always), I'm supposedly brainwashed. Well, if being well informed means I have a clean brain, then that's me.

To find out my views on this Cindy Sheehan thing, check out my homepage. And remember, I'm a soldier who fought alongside guys like Casey Sheehan.

To bring back religious rhetoric in politic is very dangerous.

If Cindy Sheenan wonders why her son died, she should take a look at the mass grave pictures in Iraq and read about Saddam's tortures technics.

I'd be hurting like hell, if I lost my son but proud of him and thankful to God for having the chance to raise such a fine young man.

How sad to tarnish his memory by making such a circus. I hope she finds peace some day.
Thx.

Casey would be embarrased and ashamed by what his mother is doing in his name. Not only did he volunteer, but he re-enlisted. His father said in a recent interview how much he wanted to serve his country.

His mother seems intent on bringing about a US defeat in Iraq and ensuring that the US never again uses it's military power to defend it's interests.

Sixty years ago this week, World War II ended. Nearly 69 MILLION people died in that war and the sad thing is it could have been prevented had the Europeans, primarily the British and the French lived up to their treaty obligations to enforce the Versailles Treaty and Locarno Pact.

The "peace at any price" crowd tied the hands of those who wished to prevent that war with an early and effective application of force.

We're living through a similar period of history today. We can either win victory through effective measures now, or wait until one or more of our cities are incinerated.

And if that happens, you can thank Cindy Sheehan.

Casey Sheehan was an Army Specialist who served his Nation honorably until he fell in April 2004. Like millions of his equally brave countrymen over the last 229 years, he had volunteered to serve his country and paid the ultimate price. His life, and death, should be honored by all Americans (oh, if that were the case!).

Even by his Mother's own (earlier) admissions, he had volunteered to go and was proud of his service.

Cindy, who is obviously firing less than all cylinders, wants to ask the President "Why did you kill my son?" I have a better question for Her... "Why are YOU killing more of our young men and women by emboldening the Enemy?" Aljazeera is already eating this stuff up, and THAT is where I draw the line on my sympathy.

Cindy was saying we are murdering iraq's and committing terrorism there,is that what she thinks of her son,is that what she thinks he did over there,she spoke of tourtue,in Iraq,is she saying her son may have been envolved?or just George Bush,she cannot condem anyone without puttingt her son smack in the middel

I pray Cindy will find some peace. Losing a son is tragic. Trashing the country her son loved, saying it is not worthy of defense, defamining the administration that he re-enlisted to serve is not my idea of respecting her son's memory or his choices. I too long for peace but know we must not stop defending those who live under tyranny and harbor those who wish to destroy the country I love. Freedom for others is just as important as freedom for us in the USA. Love one another was not a meaningless command given by my Lord. If I truly love others, I will do what is necessary to help them live in freedom. The Iraqi people have suffered for so many years. They deserve freedom and our brave military who serve to gain that freedom need our continued
support. Again I am sorry for the loss of Casey and the pain his mother feels. I cannot approve of the tactics she is using or the people she is
associating with.

George Bush told lies and twisted the intelligence to lead us into war, blatantly ignoring the UN and the rest of the world. Because of his blood lust, over 20,000 innocent civilians and more than 1,800 Americans have died. The man is a war criminal. he needs to be in prison.

Why won't he talk to Cindy? Because she will confront him with his lies. There were no WMD. There was no nuclear program. There was no threat. No one asked him to invade another nation. He knew this. And he lied to the public. Now, all of our hands are stained with the blood of innocent Iraqis.

Someone needs to hold this bloodthirsty monster accountable. Who better than a gold star mother?

Every civilian he kills creates more potential terrorists. Terrorism around the world is spreading faster now than ever before. This madman's approach to "regime change" has endangered the lives of innocent people around the world.

Why did Cindy's son die? Why won't the President answer the question? Because the truth would reveal what a cold blooded killer he is. He invaded for the oil fields. He invaded to have a land to set up a power base in the middle east. He invaded because Saddam (who was not involved with any terrorists, btw) threatened his daddy. He invaded because he could, and there's no one to rein in his megalomania. The VP? Ha. He's too busy counting his profit from the killing Halliburton has made in this little adventure.

Cindy Sheehan is receiving as much attention as she is because she is an exception. As the media never tire of telling us, more than 1,800 American troops have lost their lives in Iraq; yet you don't see 1,800 mothers standing around in Crawford, Texas.

I served with the Marines in the Desert Storm campaign of 1990-1991. I am proud of what we did, and only wish we had been able to finish the job then. As a lifelong liberal and former Democrat, I have only admiration for President Bush for overthrowing the sadistic, fascist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

My mother wasn't exactly thrilled when I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1989, but she respected my decision; and when I was called to go into battle, she supported me. Had I fallen in that battle, I know she would have honored my memory. It is unfortunate that Casey Sheehan, were he alive today, would not be able to say the same.

It's very sad that you people think we are going to win this war. We have already been defeated.
You talk about our defending our interests. You mean the interests of Bush's friends.

Why did Bush stop looking for Bin Laden? Do you think it has something to do with the Bush family having financial ties to the Bin Laden family? Bush has made a sucker of you. He similes with that shit-eating grin while he lies to you.

Thank God for what Cindy is doing, Bush doesn't give a shit about all the lives that are being wasted. And you know what, either do you.

We are fighting a war against Islamic Terror for the same rights that allow a person, such as Cindy Sheehan, to voice her questions and opinions about the war.

It's easy to label the so-called conservative mantra "The Islamists hate us for our freedom" as knee-jerk and simplistic. However, when you examine carefully what the Islamists have been saying and their actions that follow, the mantra is not just a canned, knee-jerk statement, it is actually the truth of the matter distilled to it's most concise premise.

The problem with the Cindy Sheehan's and others who think like her is that their energies are directed against the wrong enemy. Yes, it is okay to oppose a political figure on ideological grounds. That's what our freedoms allow, but we are facing an even greater opponent in these times. This is an opponent who would take away our right to political discourse in the blink of an eye. They would take away our right to interpret the meaning of things according to our conscience. They would take away our right to believe as we choose and practice our beliefs.

If only the Left would use their powers of articulation, sarcasm, concern for the common man and love of peace toward those who have already stated they want to rule over them, we would have the best chance of vanquishing the enemy called Islamic Terror. After that, we can resume our tendencies to challenge our political and social orders as we in the West have always done.

I am proud of Casey Sheehan and his sacrafice, i am sorry for his mothers loss of a beloved son, however, I am disgusted with her actions. She did already have a meeting with the President, which she first described as a good one,but now that she has aligned herself with the extreme left, MoveOn and other America haters like Lynn Stewart, she has changed her story. Certianly she is to be viewed with sorrow since she will never again be able to hug her son, but what about the other GOLD STAR mothers, what about all the Iraqi mothers who's children, husbands or other family members ended up in mass graves. Why does the left not care about them? I cannot understand those of you who insist that this war is unjust, why is it fashonable (now after the fact) to be disgusted with what the Nazis, the Khamer Rough, the countless other sadistic leaders who have commited ethnic genocide, but not Saddam? Have any of you even bothered to look at the pictures of the mass graves or some of the horrible pictures of Saddams torture victims? What about Nick Berg? Why do you not seem to understand that the ultimate goal of the terrorists is to have the entire world under there control in a Taliban style regime?(this btw is exactly in line with the one-world religion in Revelation) I doubt that Cindy Sheehan would make a very good Taliban woman, she would be killed for what she is doing right now and that is what her son died for, to protect her and the rest of us from exactly that.

Looks like the entire 38% of the American people who still believe this war was justified are here sliming Cindy and those who support her right to protest.

Cindy Sheehan has already met with the President--last July. There were pictures of the President giving her a peck on the cheek and her husband and children were there. She even wrote an item after saying what a good visit they'd had and how
"sincere" she thought the President was. The the
'Professional Left' (MoveOn.org, George Soros, NION, Code Pink) got hold of her, styled her hair, bought her a couple of new t's with THEIR 'peace' messages on them and are camped out with her in an attempt to embarrass the President. Cindy's son, Casey, would be whirling in his grave if he could see what his mom's mixed up in. The fact that Cindy's lost a son is reason for me to be charitable; but it doesn't give her the right to diss the President, especially during a time of war. I don't think she's entitled to another visit with the President...not after the way she's talked and behaved. She's doing exactly what our fighting men and women over there don't want to see; she's tearing the military down and they want our support.

Cindy has said:

"...these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants...."

What an image! What IS CINDY TALKING ABOUT? Does she really mean to imply that the President, Vice-President and Donald Rumsfeld indulge in PHYSICAL ORGIES?

It's statements such as this which put Cindy's rhetoric beyond the pale and call into question her ability to think and reason. I realized she's lost a son but I don't see her as a mourning woman at all. She's media savvy and articulate but her mind is very uncoordinated and she fires off with whatever comes first to her mind without thinking it over. She's a pathetic sad woman who's now lost the rest of her family because she is obsessed about forcing George Bush to acquiese to her request. She's attacking the President from behind her grieving mother's weeds in a passive-aggressive style that leaves one wondering whether perhaps she's more angry with her son Casey and using the President as a whipping boy!

Kelly,

Never any Taliban in Iraq. Hussein kept the terrorists out. Bin Laden had about as much love for Hussein as he has for us. The terrorists moved into Iraq after our illegal invasion, an invasion which gave them the best recruiting tool they've ever had.

The war against terror was in Afghanistan. Let's try saying this all together...THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND IRAQ. This was an invasion orchestrated by Bush that had nothing to do with terror.

Someone mentioned mass graves. The most accurate estimate we have of civilian deaths caused by our invasion is 23,000 to 26,000. We have tortured prisoners. We have murdered the wounded. Is the moral argument that our atrocities are smaller than Hussein's, so we are morally superior? Absurd.

We have murdered innocent Iraqis. We have given reason for the terrorists to move into Iraq. We have not rebuilt that nation. And now, we are supporting a constitution to be passed that will indeed make this another Islamic extremist nation, where women will be more oppressed than they ever were under Saddam Hussein.
We have put into place a Taliban-like government.

The things being said here about Cindy are reprehensible. This woman paid the ultimate price. Unless you have made a similar sacrifice, I think you owe Cindy an apology.

Good "Christians" justifying the invasion and killing of innocent Iraqis, from the comfort of their easy chair. A sad statement on how far from the example of our Savior we have fallen.

Randy -

Nice red herring.

Do you have anything factual to say about the actual topic?

How about discussing the question "Is Cindy right or wrong to do what she is doing, and why?"

It is interesting that no conservatives have atacked her right to do what she is doing. But we do question her judgement.

Fresh:

Great post...

Diane:

Perhaps you do not recall that the mass graves were largely filled during the end of the first Gulf War--they have nothing whatsoever to do with this one. This war has strengthened Iran as the only superpower in the region: so many of our soldiers have died and, at least so far, the only winner is our most cunning and difficult adversary in the region--no wonder Cindy has questions. Don't you have any?

Is this really ok with you? Do you really think President Bush had done sufficient plannning for the period after the invasion? Doesn't it bother you at all?

Jb

Just because Casey gave up his life for something he believed in does not mean that his mother needs to support the war. He had the right to do what he wants and so too she has a right to protest -- it's supposedly a free country, at least until the Patriot Act became more permanent.

All this discussion about ulterior motives is ridiculous. Why would she let herself be pillaged the Rightwingers? Regardless of her reasons for protesting (she is a grieving mother -- no malicious motives), very simply put: she has a right to protest what she sees as an unjust war. I see no malicious motives in her protest, as do many Americans.

Supporting the troops does not equate to going along blindly with an unjust war or a defiant President. I see this deception many times in times of war. Protesting does not necessarily mean support for the enemy or dissing the troops.

All this talk about her protest emboldening the enemy is a smoke screen. People who disagree with the war should AND must protest. What should they do instead -- complacently sit by and bottle their objections? Following one's conscience is a noble and courageous thing to do.

Is she dishonoring Casey with this protest? No. If she were to spit on his grave or not show up for the burial or acted disruptively at this funeral, then yes she dishonors him. Her right to protest what she sees as an unjust war is a separate issue from honoring her son. All those who bring up this issue of dishonor wish to smear Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan asks not why her son died or had to died (he chose to go to war), instead she asks for what reason is the US at war. A very good question for all of us to ask ourselves and our President.

God bless Casey AND Cindy Sheehan. (And the troops and the innocent Iraqis.)

Sadam Hussein was evil. He used chemical weapons on his own people in the early 1980's. Yet, because he was strategically important at that time, the U.S. government allowed his people to suffer. After Kuwait we had ample opportunity to dislodge his government, yet we allowed the Iraqi people to suffer. After 10 more years of suffering the U.S. government decides to act (virtually alone).

Because of the expense of the war we went in with far fewer troops than the pentagon's war plan required. The Bush administration decided it could get the job done for less money. The U.S. military remains undermanned for the job it is asked to do, and continues to rely to heavily on reserve units.

Sadam Hussein was outside the ethical sphere. International action was called for and a wise president would have been able to achieve this. But now the U.S. is outside the ethical sphere as far as the world is concerned. The 'ethical sphere' is were love thy neighbor as thyself and turn the other cheek are the rules of the day and always tell the truth are the rules of the day.

The U.S. government is willing to follow the will of international organizations (at least the will of the World Trade Organization) so I don't want any lectures about the evil of the U.N.

I respect U.S. servicemen. I am a veteran (not of the Persian wars). U.S. servicemen will do their best to follow orders. They will do their best to look after others in their unit. They will do their best to not harm civilians, but the lines get blurry in an insurgency. A better battle plan may have avoided this quagmire that looks more and more like vietnam. A better diplomatic effort may have achieved the world support we needed.

The citizens of this country should call their government to task. But none of this will be helpful to the chaos the citizens of Iraq face now and will continue to face when we leave. And we will eventually leave - maybe it will take ten years like it did in vietnam, but we will leave.

The question is who speaks for the Iraqi's? Do we listen to the Shiite's or the Kurd's or the Suni's? Where is a good diplomat when you need one. We sure could use Solomon now.

KSM --

"It is interesting that no conservatives have atacked her right to do what she is doing. But we do question her judgement."

No conservatives attacking her right to do what is doing? *coffee spew* Excuse me. The Rightwingers currently have an enormous smear campaign against her. They have questioned her motives, defamed her character, and have held her up to ridicule. BY SMEARING HER, THE RIGHTWINGERS WISH TO QUELL HER INTO SILENCE.

If they respected her right to protest, they would let her protest in peace. Again, by smearing her, they wish to bully her into silence, to take away her voice. Smearing is a much stronger tactic of intimidation, since they cannot object to her right to protest.

An analogy will help: In the Jim Crow days of the deep South, the bigots could not lawfully deny blacks the right to vote, instead they gave the predominantly black counties one voting booth with odd hours for voting. Oh, the bigots let the blacks vote alright, they just made it incredibly hard to do so. Likewise, oh no, the conservatives don't question her right to protests, they just smear her instead (make it harder for her to peacefully protest).

Question her judgement? What issue about her judgement are the conservatives questioning? She believes the war is unjust, she protest.

Her motives? She wants to know why the US went to war.

"Protesting does not necessarily mean support for the enemy or dissing the troops. " Isn't it funny the troops don't agree with you on that, but I guess you can just dismiss their opinions, even though it is their lives on the line.
Yeah aren't you noble you can prance down the street with a sign in hands and a big mouth, nobelity the american way Huh?
What a crock. How about the people who do support the war, are they not supposed to a say? You would think so by the way you guys act, it is the protesters are the only ones who have a right to speak. What about the names on those crosses out there? Parents/ spouses are upset because their child's /spouse name is on a cross representing the anti war movement and they don't want it there. How about that? Where are all the mothers? They are representing all the mothers I hear them everyday cryinga bout this, they are insulted, they humiliated and feel the child's death is being miligned. What about that? they don't have rights I guess because you think they are brainwashed. Why don't have a little pow wow with OBL and see how far you get?

Actually, Mommaj, there is a counter-protest going on in Crawford that uses a similar field of crosses in order to push the message "that their deaths not be in vain".

I served in the military. My father made it his career. My grandfather survived the shelling of Corregidor and months of imprisonment as a POW in Bataan. We all gave everything we had to support everyone's right to express themselves. I find it incredibly offensive for anyone to suggest that it was only for one side or the other.

I don't agree with many of the hangers-on that have followed Ms. Sheehan. I do, however, stand for their right to say what is on their hearts and minds. It is, in fact, the single most unAmerican thought possible to say that they do not.

I also will dispute that protesting a needless war is demoralizing to the troops or a comfort to the enemy. Peace activists have really doubled-over backwards to make sure that their comments are directed away from the troops and directly at the commander-in-chief and his cohorts who so poorly planned and executed this action. It is the highest form of patriotism and simpatico with our brothers-in-arms to push for better planning, support, and equipment. Please try and explain how trying to keep our soldiers and marines alive is somehow betraying them.

It is not the opposition to the war that emboldens the opposition, but our continued presence and our inability to secure the peace. It is the hubris and arrogance of a leader who says that he does not need anyone's permission or support to do what he wants.

I've had way too much of people on the right who have never seen combat or had a family member (and this is not directed at mammaj) killed or injured in action take pot shots at those who have.

I'll put this bluntly - unless your kid or spouse is over there, I don't think you have any credibility in saying that they should stay over there longer. My family has long paid its fair share of the cost of freedom and we will proudly continue to do so. Unless you are willing to do so, then you should remain silent on how our troops get killed to give you the right to send them over there.

Why are so many of you folks so paranoid about what Cindy Sheehan is doing to George Bush? Could your consciences be bothering you because she is shining light on the lies of the darkness he and his minions have cast over the U.S. and the world?

This woman is refreshingly honest and just wants Bush to honestly explain the "noble cause" that her son died for. Bush, of course, won't, because he can't. And neither can any of you supporting him.

Sheehan said the following in another article posted today:
"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out." ... a simple, honest statement from a grieving mother who accepted that her son joined the military but would like to know why he had to die in an illegal and unjustified war.

XT:
I don't think disagreeing with the way this group is protesting is considered bashing, which is what I keep hearing here.
I do hear people all day and soldiers who are bothered by the protest because they feel demoralized. I am just trying to support them because of what they have said. I do know there is pro-war groups forming and I am glad to see it.
Disagreeing with the war can be a respectful idea, I don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with rhetoric that follows so much of it. I have heard several moms/wives that didn't agree with Iraq and lost someone, but they don't call Bush a liar, or nazi or things like that. I guess I just see a difference, apparently on this site unless you agree 100% with Cindy you are hateful jerk, and think that is hateful itself ( not directed to XT). anyway thanks for your service XT it is appreciated by many.

Well, I can't say it any better than Oldredleg just did (Amen!Amen!Amen!), but I will mention yet again (and I will keep reminding everyone around me every day as long as this sort of attitude is popular in this country)that when you start insisting that you don't question a president or his administration, and you use the excuse that "well, we're at war" (a war a LOT of us just want to know why we entered in the first place, since most of the reasons for starting it have proven to be either lies, distortions,straw men, or a combination of the three), and you actually go on to elevate that president (who is an EMPLOYEE of the people, and that means ALL the people, including those like Cindy who want some answers to some direct questions) and his policies into demi-godhood, not only have you committed a blasphemy as a Christian by embracing an ideology (in this case UltraConservatism/ Unrestrained Capitalism) that you say must NEVER be questioned (or you're "UnAmerican"), you have also become no better than a McCarthyist, a Soviet Communist Party Member, or a Nazi. And I can tell you this, the Founding Fathers would have been HORRIFIED at this attitude. Those were men who encouraged free-thinking and RATIONAL thinking, and who abhored the very thought of a "king", and yet that's precicely what the "Bushites" have done-- made "W" into their King, Who Is Not To Be Questioned. Sieg Heil! And now let's sing a chorus of Deutchland, Deutchland.....

Nationalism is truly an ugly, evil thing, and every true patriot (and Christian) should spit on it.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

Just a couple of comments......

First, I am a retired soldier and stood many a night in the cold and wet to defend the freedoms that are forefather's gave us.

That being said, with those freedoms came responsibility, the responsibility to use them wisely and without 'self-gain'. This is exactly what Ms. Sheehan has NOT done. Now, before everyone gets all uppity about the 1st Amendment, let me finish.

Ms. Sheehan has the right to speak her mind, no doubt. But with that right, she needs to think about the repercussions. What about those service members still serving? How do you think they feel about what she is saying? I am retired and I am disgusted that she would tread all over our fighting forces! What do you think those buddies of SPC Sheehan are saying? The bond between soldiers is stronger than anything physically imaginable. You know your buddy and everything about him. His family becomes your family as the bond strengthens. In essence, Cindy Sheehan has not only desecrated the memory and fact that her son is a hero, but those of the men and women he served right beside!

I have a few questions for Ms. Sheehan:

1. How old was your son when he enlisted? Federal law dictates a minimum age for military service. If he is under that age, a parent signature is required. Was he under that age? Did you sign? Or was the decision his to make because he was an adult?!?!?!

2. If your son did not voluntarily enlist, then please provide the names and descriptions of the person(s) that came and forcibly took him to boot camp. I will join the effort to have the President take our troops out of Iraq and bring them home. Obviously there are issues here that require our attention. Let's just forget the fact that people such as Saddam had forced military service on the young men (sometimes as young as 12) of Iraq, or the fact that because you did not worship his god, then you were massacred by chemical weapons. Is that OK?

3. If your son has been a public servant in New York City and lost his life in the collapse of the World Trade Centers, would you be desecrating the fact that he is a hero, trying to save lives? Can you see a correlation here?

4. Maybe you need to seek grievance counseling. There are five stages of grieving and you obviously have not passed the second stage yet.

No person ever said war was fun, easy, or painless. As a matter of fact, in one of the initial speeches from our President, he stated it would be long and hard. You may disagree with the method he is handling the war and that is your right. But your voice is now heard around the world and those men and women, young and old, that serve our country do so willingly and without coercion. They deserve our respect, so let’s get behind them and let them do there job!

I found this online the other day. I put it on file thinking it my be useful some day it might help a little in this blog. The dead soldiers make me feel bad but when I see photos of dead and mangled children I get quiet up set and I know there is a lot in this war and all wars and it is sickening. We are supposed to be Christian lets talk of God. See photos http//www.salon.com/newsfeature/2005/08/23/iraq_ _gallery/index.html
Why did they hate America?
by Addison
Sat Jun 18th, 2005 at 13:10:16 PDT
Much ado has been made about how Liberals hurt America with their criticisms of the Iraq war. Here is an outrageously abridged compendium of Republican statements made during the Kosovo War of 1999. Obviously the Iraq war and Kosovo war are quite different in general and in specifics. This diary, however, is about the reaction to war, not the war itself.
These quotes undercut claims that the anti-war left's criticisms of the war, the strategy, and the president constitute proof that we "hate" America. They represent only the tip of the iceberg.
This is an "action" diary. I Googled my way through acres of Kosovo quotes, and I'm rather tired of it. Also, we just got a new cat and I want to play with it. So, Kossacks, use Google to see if your Senator, representative, or your favorite right wing blowhard was against supporting our troops in Kosovo, and then see how far their rhetoric went in undermining our mission there. Again, this isn't about particulars of either war, it's about the hypocrisy.
Any quote you find post below. They will be combined into a person-by-person diary later this week.
· Addison's diary :: ::
·
Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."
-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Why did they blame America first?
Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R)
"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."
-Michael Savage
"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R)
"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

Addendum (4.00 / 9)
See also: This fantastic Slate article by Will Saletan and anything said by Rush Limbaugh in March-June of 1999. From the Slate article (which I really implore you to read, it's a targeted version of this diary):
Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.

Danny:

First, from one vet to another, thanks for everything you did.

Second, I understand your point, and, to some extent, I agree with you. No one forced Casey Sheehan to volunteer.

However,

No commander is ever relieved of the responsibility for caring for his men. There is no justification for sending someone into combat without proper equipment. Yeah, ever action has its snags - last time I checked there's no WalMart halfway across the Atlantic and I'm sure there's not one in Bagdad, either.

However, the action we are currently involved in was an action of choice. Whether you believe it was intentional or not, all of the reasons for going into Iraq (other than "Saddam is a bad guy") have turned out to be wrong. We went in way too soon and without establishing a secure line of supply. This has cost us life after life.

I can (possibly) excuse the problems at the very beginning of the action. However, the problems have been persistent and have been exacerbated by an insistence on using non-military personel whenever possible. Money that should have gone to buying spare parts and body armor have gone instead to padding KBR's bottom line. There is, very simply, no excuse for this.

I have some problems with a lot of the hangers-on who are, at this point, using Cindy Sheehan to gain attention. However, if the people who pay the price of freedom cannot ask for redress of grievances, then who can? If you are disgusted by the circus that Ms. Sheehan's protest has become, I'd remind you that it could be ended with a short meeting from one man. Yes, it is asking a lot and it would set a precedent that might not be sustainable, but it would end it.

XT

XT,

I am not going to dabate the reasons for the war, that is not why I wrote. I too am a Texan, native, proud, and still here and loving it! But foremost, I am an American and our President needs our support. Whether you agree with him or not, he is still a person. I would like to invite you to look at him when he was running for his first term of office. Now look at him today. Do you not think that the pressures have taken their toll?

My purpose, which was somewhat succesful as determined by the number of emails received, was to entice some thought and reposnisibility that is s result of the freedoms that we enjoy.

My other hearburn is with the media, as always. They are not showing the schools being built, the roads being redone, the infrastructure that is being re-established. Nope, they are showing the 'terrorist' actions on a daily basis and reporting the number of soldiers killed. Do they report on a daily basis the number of soldiers that are killed in training accidents or car wrecks? They do not show the support for the soldiers but rather focus on people like Cindy Sheehan. Even television now has a series called "Over There" about the war. Does it show the good things? I don't know, I do not watch it because all of the previews are showing fighting and 'sensational' items.

XT, I stood in the hot sun in the sandbox, slept on the cold frozen ground in Europe and swatted mosquitoes bigger than those in Louisiana while in the tropics, all to preserve peace and our way of life. I am very proud of that and would do it again if I had too. But when people, organizations, and media begin to down trodden those men and women that are still serving, I become very distraught. Every service member, no matter what service, share a bond and are brothers and sisters until the end. When one is disgraced by irresponsibility, either by a grieving mother or 'non-profit organization' or by the one-sided media, we are all disgraced.

I guess, to sum up, yes, we have the right to peacable assembly, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of press, this I agree with. But with those rights are responsibilities that NO ONE is taking into account ar living up too and that is just a crying whining shame!