Mother of dead soldier really pissed at Bush

kicky, You ALWAYS have an open invitation as far as I'm concerned. You bring more laughs than all the other a2kers put together.

(First, to be honest, which I most often am, I have not read more than a few pages here, so if this has been said, I apologize [even if it has been said, I will say it my way])

Senator John McCain said:

"It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay."

When people believe in a cause, any resulting "price paid" may be worth it in the bigger picture (as terrible as any war is, sometimes there is a good reason for it).

In a war with no strategy, no exit plan, and, IMHO, no real reason, and as this picture becomes clearer, more and more people will be changing their minds as more time passes and more people are harmed (or worse) for one man's arrogance or ignorance.

I supported the war at first, but as more information has come to light, I see it as one huge mistake, and how do you tell someone their child (or husband, wife, mother, father, etc.) died for a mistake? To those who don't or won't understand what I have offered, "Stay the course" will make all the sense in the world.

By the way, the McCain quote was about Vietnam, but rings more true than ever.

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness
Gary Hart
A Voice Crying in the Wilderness
8/11/05

If democracy only works when there is open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, and if the opposition party, in this case the Democrats, has hand-cuffed, blind-folded, gagged, and hog-tied itself to a failed invasion and occupation in the Middle East, where will the expanding majority of Americans look for a representative, a spokesperson, a voice for their anger, frustration, and distrust at being misled?

The circumstances suggest it should be a Senate or House Democratic leader, a recognized authority on foreign policy constantly seen on the Sunday talk shows, certainly one of the many "leaders" lining up to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for president in 2008.

Strangely, no one in any of those categories comes to mind. Their voices are silent. Thus, both they and the party they claim or presume to represent look dumbstruck, awkward, pitiful, and timid. Where the single greatest issue of the day, and one of the most potent issues of our time, is concerned, there is no courageous opposition.

Meanwhile, the caskets keep coming home…with no public official to greet them or to respect them. They are the forgotten dead and they represent thousands more of the even more forgotten wounded.

But wait. There is someone to hold the emperor to account. There is someone willing to look ridiculous, to be mocked and made a fool of, to challenge the conventional wisdom of the court.

She, unfortunately, is not a Senator. She is not a party leader. She is not in the regular establishment Rolodex of the Sunday talk producers. Yet, she holds the highest office available in a republic, that of citizen.

And to the embarrassment of both Republican and Democratic establishments, she takes that office more seriously than they?-the silent "leaders"?-do theirs. When the last Marine leaves Iraq, dead or alive, she can claim more credit than them all. Because of the courage of one brave woman, she quite possible will have had more to do with finally bringing this great nation back to its senses... and to its principles.

Remember her name. It is Cindy Sheehan.

Yay! I'll be there in twenty minutes.



Has anyone ever told you that you have a really weird sense of humor? :wink: One of these days I'll take you up on that offer, sir.

Twenty minutes!!! You must be really thirsty. Don't they have drinks up there where you come from?

Yeah, but not for free!

<calling servant to tell him to fire up the Learjet>

Cindy Sheehan and her supporters could probably use a cold drink down there in the blazing sun of Crawford, Texas. Sorry to touch on the topic.

True, Intrepid, so true. Looks like this old clown is about to go broke buying drinks.

Note to Kicky----My people will meet you at the airport and limo you over to the closest watering hole. Oh, and could I get a tour of your Lear?

Is that "Lear" spelled correctly? LOL

I think it's spelled "leary."

That's right, make fun of the clown. As if a grown man in makeup doesn't have enough problems to deal with.

Bermbits,

"In a war with no strategy, no exit plan, and, IMHO, no real reason, and as this picture becomes clearer, more and more people will be changing their minds as more time passes and more people are harmed (or worse) for one man's arrogance or ignorance. "

What kind of war did you think we were getting into in this struggle against terrorism? Bush was upfront from day one stating this was a war unlike any other we'd fought in the past, so don't try to fit it into a WW mold where armies fight other armies and one is able to track progress by the positions of an army on a map.

I have either been in the Army or supporting the Army for 22 years and currently support the Army at the Pentagon. We continue to struggle with ways to measure success in this war and feel deeply for every soldier that comes home under a flag draped coffin. But please don't disparage our war fighting efforts as without strategy, without exit plan or without reason.

I'll give you that the wrong decision (based on bad data) may have been made to go into Iraq, but I did support it at the time. And now that we're there, I'm commited to fighting and winning. I think that cutting our losses and running would result in far more deaths (albeit they would be american civilians rather than soldiers...see New York/Washington/Madrid/London/Bali, etc.).

I often wonder where all these nay-sayers were three years ago before we went into Iraq. And why a wrong decision is characterized, after the fact, as a lie or arrogance or a comment on the President's intelligence. Since I was (and remain) complicit in the decision am I also arrogant or ignorant?

slk, i posed that thought on another thread, that because i honestly believe bush did what he thought was the right thing, that i was snowed by him somehow.

and i agree, running now would only fuel the fire. and you are right, our enemy now is very different. they don't sit in one country, waiting for us, they sit across the world, hiding like cowards waiting for the opportune moment to kills as many people as possible. it is disgusting.

slkshock7
slkshock7, welcome to A2K. I think you will like the quality of most posting here.

Being a newbie, you are not aware of the many of us who opposed going to war in Iraq (W's war, not his father's) based on our knowlege of the history of the region and it's culture. Attacking Afghanistan was a different stroy, of course.

Many of us predicted what has happened since our invasion and what we believe is still to happen.

So we were not silent when the decisions were being made. Critical, rational thinkers were ignored in the face of a predetermined plan.
Part of our frustration is that people who really knew the region and the people and their history were ignored.

BBB

slkshock7
slkshock7, welcome to A2K. I think you will like the quality of most posting here.

Being a newbie, you are not aware of the many of us who opposed going to war in Iraq (W's war, not his father's) based on our knowlege of the history of the region and it's culture. Attacking Afghanistan was a different stroy, of course.

Many of us predicted what has happened since our invasion and what we believe is still to happen.

So we were not silent when the decisions were being made. Critical, rational thinkers were ignored in the face of a predetermined plan.
Part of our frustration is that people who really knew the region and the people and their history were ignored.

In spite of that, I don't think we can cut and and run as I'm convinced that will lead to civil war. Bush senior deserted the Shiites when we encouraged them to revolt against Saddam and they died by the thousands as we watched from afar. We cannot do that to them a second time.

BBB

slkshock7:

Being a newbie, you are not aware of the many of us who supported going to war in Iraq, for the many good reasons there were.


Welcome to A2K.

BBB,

Thanks for the welcome...

Maybe I'm being a little isolationist here, but frankly the human tragedy of civil war in Iraq concerns me less than the prospect of a world where every two-bit thug knows that a few murders of American innocents is a surefire method to achieve his political, monetary, or criminal objective.

i think two bit thug is a little too nice a word for them...

Don't blame you for that...and many on the other side from you on this issue...feel that same way.

But I am much, much, much more concerned with the prospect of a world where a moron (or near moron if you choose) gets to become president of the United States...and then tries to deal with two-bit thugs in ways that cause more murders of American innocents (and other nationality innocents)j...and makes the world less safe by his counter-productive machinations.

George Bush said we were going into Iraq for reasons that simply were not so.

George Bush told us we would be more safe...that terrorism would be less a threat...by making this war....

...and that has pretty much been shown to be wrong also.

Many of us shouted at the top of our voices that this war in Iraq would eventually lead to a day where things would be worse for the world...we all would be, if not less safe, certainly no safer...and that we would be faced with options all of which would be horrible.

All of those things, in my opinion, have come to pass.

Hating this war...hating the circumstances that lead to it....hating the counterproductive results...and abhoring the options now available to us...

...is not an indication of a lack of patriotism...or a lack of resolve.

Frank and slk, You are basing your arguments on a premise that is simply not true. There is a perfectly good alternative to the current bloody mess we are in.

We should withdraw US troops by next summer and turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

The newly elected government is fully capable of running things by itself. The majority Shia will take over and handle the civil insurgency the way that all countries deal with insurgencies. There is no danger at all the the insurgency will be able to topple majority Shia with its ally in the region.

Leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

This is Bush's war with Al Qaeda. It is not being fought for the Iraqis... and even the government installed by our elections are telling us it is time to get out.

The only reason that the US is not withdrawing is because the Bush administration doesn't want to look bad in its war against terrorists. If the US leaves Iraq, the terrorists leave Iraq.

Why should the Iraqis continue to suffer for a war that until 3 years ago, they had nothing to do with?

It is time for the US to leave Iraq.