Three things here are so blazingly stupid, they scream out for correction:

1) NO ONE has "sent kids" to Iraq. Every single member of our armed services are adults, who have freely chosen and actively sought to join the military. To call them "kids" and imply that they have been duped or coerced to serve is to denigrate and insult their intelligence and integrity.

2) As a logical extension of the above, NO ONE can be forced to join the military and serve against their will. If you didn't hear, the draft ended almost 30 years ago, and there's no chance in hell of it coming back. The only ones calling for it are Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who got all bent out of shape when Republicans took his stupid "reinstate the draft" bill and actually put it up for a vote -- ending up with him voting against his own bill, whining the whole time.

Or are you for reinstating the draft, but limiting it to those who made the unfortunate choice of picking the wrong parents? So much for Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which forbids "corruption of blood," or the principle of punishing the children for the sins of the parents.

Further, I think it speaks volumes of you and others who insist on attacking Bush's children for your disagreements with him, or choose to use those children as means of attacking him. I lost all respect I might have ever had for Rush Limbaugh when he went after Chelsea Clinton back in the early 90's; I'm rapidly reaching that point with those who use Bush's daughters to go after him. It's a real sign of a chickenshit when you declare them "fair game."

3) Cindy Sheehan is now on record calling the terrorists who killed her son "freedom fighters." (Cited at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/114019.php and http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/, with video at http://www.sweetness-light.com/?p=36 ).

Here are her own words:

"You know, Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean, they’re not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Iraq was not a terrorist state.

But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. Uh, freedom fighters from other, um, countries are going in. And they have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country.

The terrorism is growing. And people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their, out of their country."

The woman needs to be taken off the national stage immediately. She needs pity and help, NOT further exploitation by an anti-war crowd that is so desperate for success that they are willing (nay, eager) to exploit this woman's grief-stricken unbalancing.

J.

Jay Tea, there is a lot I can argue about in your comment and some things that I can agree with ... but you truly need to understand that even a fifty year old man is still a child to his mother.

Rogue, I do understand that. I even respect it. But I don't grant it the power to hold sway over our nation's foreign policy. By carrying that to its logical end, we'd never do anything risky, just sit around and try to stay safe and not offend anyone -- right up until the day someone comes looking to hurt us.

I have no doubt about Mrs. Sheehan's sincerity, or the pain of her loss. I have tremendous problems with the sincerity of her handlers, and believe that they are exploiting and using her for their own ends with utter disregard for what's best for her. I also stand by my long-standing belief that feelings can not, do not, and must not trump reason.

I think that the caravan of other Gold Star parents on their way to confront her and her supporters is wrong, because I don't think that this issue should be settled by whoever demonstrates that they feel the most. But I won't denounce it, because I can sympathize with those people, too. Several parents have already spoken out against their children's names being put on crosses at Sheehan's camp without their permission, and now those people erecting the crosses are saying that they will take down any that are objected to -- bringing the spammers' tactic of "opt out" to a vile, new low.

J.

One final point, David: you said "To all those folks out there who seem to think they know better how her son would feel, than the woman who raised him... I just have to scratch my head..."

As Rogue pointed out, to a mother, their child is always their "child." But Casey Sheehan was no child, he was a man. He knew his mother was opposed to the military when he enlisted. He knew that when he re-enlisted. And he knew that when he volunteered for his last mission.

I think that some credence ought to be given to those who knew Casey Sheehan as a man, who lived and worked beside him for days, weeks, months, even years, that they might know Casey the man pretty well. And their opinions ought to be given credibility.

J.

Sure Jay. I would take into account the Comments of any of his Squadies, But have not heard any

Of all the things I said, that is the only one you care to dispute? I'm half-tempted to concede that one point, if that means you're accepting all my other ones. Especially since I can toss it off with a "absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence."

J.

I agree that feelings should not trump reason. But, what Cindy has to say is more than just feelings. She brings up very valid arguments, arguments that have been made since the beginning. I think that she is just more adamant about those things since she so acutely feels the loss of her son.

I can argue the merits of this war all day. I oppose the war, that is no secret. As a Christian, one who truly believes in following the example of loving one's enemies that Jesus Christ set forth for us, I cannot condone the actions of this administration nor the repeated lies they have told.

From that same view I can say that it doesn't matter what Casey believed here on earth at this point. It doesn't matter if he was for the war or why he enlisted in the military. Once he died, everything changed. We find out just how wrong we were about many things when faced with a holy God who does not see the world as we see it. And, regardless of how you view the war or anyone else, the people that are being killed over there are loved by God. God even loves the insurgents, regardless of who they worship or what excuse they give to their evil. Just as God loves our administration regardless of who they have killed and what excuse they give for their evil as well.

Honestly, at some point, this administration is going to have to face the lies that they have told and the actions they have taken. That day is coming sooner than they would wish, I believe. Bush's approval ratings are shot. Support for the war is greatly diminishing. Everyday we are hearing more and more what went on before the war that led up to the war.

Cindy Sheehan is just the current side attraction. Unfortunately.

Rogue, the "lie" meme has been thoroughly and completely debunked. There is a huge difference between "lie" and "wrong." Bush (along with Blair, Clinton, and a heap of other past and present world leaders) all believed, on the best evidence available, that Saddam was developing WMDs. This could have been disproven quite easily, had Saddam complied with the terms of his surrender from the first Gulf War, but he was playing a very dangerous game.

Saddam wanted WMDs, to keep his own dissidents in line and his foreign enemies (Mainly Iran) at bay. But having them would bring down the wrath of the US. So, what he tried to do was run a bluff; avoid directly confirming either way, by refusing inspections and blocking any form of cooperation, while dropping broad hints that he did, indeed, have them to keep Iran at bay. He planned to use the bribe money he was spreading around through Oil For Food to keep the UN deadlocked.

It very nearly worked. Germany out-and-out said that under no circumstances would they vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Russia, with lucrative oil contracts in the offing, put up its own roadblocks. And France, with even more oil contracts, leaned heavily on Eastern Europe (telling them that "this would be a good time to shut up") and its former colonies in Africa, offering them out-and-out bribes of their own to oppose action in Iraq.

9/11 changed that. (That alone proves to me that Saddam had nothing to do with it -- it was, ultimately, the worst thing that could happen to him.) The US shook off the shackles with which it had bound itself since the First Gulf War and started realizing that terrorism needed to be fought -- and not with lawyers and judges, but warriors.

And numerous WMDs HAVE been found in Iraq. Sarin gas shells have turned up by the dozens -- far more than were "unaccounted for" by Saddam's well-chronicled destruction of the 90's. Further, the chemical agents have a lifespan of less than a decade -- which is conclusive proof that they were developed AFTER the first Gulf War.

For millennia, people insisted that the earth was flat. In the 1900's, people insisted that trains going faster than 60 MPH would suffocate their passengers. In the 20's, the New York Times announced that despite Dr. Robert Goddard's work, no manned rocket would ever put a man in space.

The key difference between "wrong" and "lie" is intent. One needs to know that one is uttering an untruth to qualify as a "lie." Bush acted on the best available evidence at the time. More's the pity that through most of the 90's, the budgets of the intelligence agencies -- especially those parts dealing with human intelligence -- were cut so drastically.

J.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: