Mother of dead soldier really pissed at Bush

There are lots of things I want to say on this thread yet, but it's getting late for me so I'm just gonna toss a few things out there.

1. My turn to welcome slk, so far I found your posts well thought out and enlightening. I'm looking forward to you making me re-evaluate my positions on topics, but don't expect immediate capitulation :wink:

2. Link to a video shot from a guy in Austin on Sheehan.

3. You know it seems to me that this guy can take time from his vacation to fly back to Washington to sign a bill to "save" a braindead girl, but he can't take five more minutes to walk to the end of his f*cking drive way and talk to this woman who sacrificed her son for his reelec...errrrrr our war on.... WTF are we calling it these days?

Furthermore; as a former Texan, I'd like to give kudos to the statement made by the guy who shot the aforementioned video: "A Real Texan doesn't leave a grieving mother sitting on the side of the road without stopping to see if there's anything he can do for her."


Ry

Thankfully for her, you are not her son. Of course her aims are political. She wants to know why her son died in a ill conceived and phony war initiated by a ill conceived and phony leader.

I guess I understand why your ilk automatically rules out any authenticity on the part of this mother of a dead soldier. That would be almost like conceding a little bit that this is a criminal war conceived in lies and opposed by about 60% of anyone who's asked about it. I mean, no way you're gonna consider there might be any truth in that. It'd interrupt all your "Proud to be an American spreading freedom" horseshyt.

The war is political. What's your point?

What should she use? Her dead son is the subject of her motivation.

Intrepid wrote:

What should she use? Her dead son is the subject of her motivation.

That's the problem. She is using the memory of her son for a political reason. She want's something she isn't going to get and is in the process of making an a$$ of herself.

Thankfully for her, you are not her son. Of course her aims are political. She wants to know why her son died in a ill conceived and phony war initiated by a ill conceived and phony leader.

guess I understand why your ilk automatically rules out any authenticity on the part of this mother of a dead soldier. That would be almost like conceding a little bit that this is a criminal war conceived in lies and opposed by about 60% of anyone who's asked about it. I mean, no way you're gonna consider there might be any truth in that. It'd interrupt all your "Proud to be an American spreading freedom" horseshyt.

We have done it - as a nation we have done it.

We have no soul.

We have turned the most sacred of relationships - a mothers relationship with he son into a political **** fest.

We don't even care about truth, love, kindness, community, or freedom any more. It is ALL about ego and posturing.

God save our souls because we sold them.

I, personally, can't take it anymore.

TF

Tread

"the first question for the bush administration is; "if this is a different kind of war, why are we fighting a new, and shadowy, enemy the same old way ?".

I'd argue that we are not....yes, the battle for Baghdad three years ago was more traditional, but no longer. ....Perhaps a lot of the difficulty folks have with the war is because we are fighting it so differently that we have problems measuring and they have problems recognizing, success.

hmmm. maybe i didn't explain it right ? in my view, that america launched a military assualt on iraq at all is fighting the "new war" in the "old way".

it was nearly predictable what was going to happen. did i say nearly? it was predictable and was forecast by bush sr.

the only thing keeping iraq from religious and ethnic civil war was the mobster hussein regime. once that nation wide suppression was gone...well, we see the results, don't we ?

so, in that way, whether the guys have strykers (which are full of real world problems from what i've read) or not really makes no difference when they are stuck in the middle of a country that wants to be 3 countries and is tipping further daily towards civil war.

everything that i've come across shows that the only established islamist terrorist camp, before the invasion, was in the north east corner of the kurdish territory. outside of the no fly zone.

if the war is really intended to go after terrorists, wouldn't it have made more sense to identify that camp, and any others that we could and take more of a surgical approach ? supposedly that's where zarqawi was hanging out. would have cut that problem off at the ankles wouldn't it? instead, we now have him running around and finally declaring himself as part of al qaida.

"i guess the second question is; "if you insist on fighting a new war the old way, why are you cheaping out ? why don't the generals and soldiers have the numbers and materials to deliver the crushing blows needed to bring this type of war to a conclusion ?"

How would you propose we deliver a "crushing blow" to an enemy that blends with the populace so well? I guess a few nukes over Baghad, Ramadi, or Fallujah would do the trick, but some others on this thread might have a problem with that solution. And why do you claim that we are doing it "on the cheap"? Soldiers today are better equipped than any in history. Unfortunately, war is not antiseptic. You can spend billions more in Iraq but soldiers will still die. I understand that the Iraq war is already approaching the cost of the entire 15 or so years of Vietnam. Doesn't sound cheap to me.

nukes ? why nukes ? what, we have only do nothing or nukes ? i'd have a problem with nukes, as well. even the so called "battlefield" variety that they are testing. plain old explosive bombs would do just fine, without all of the glow in the dark fun.

"on the cheap", by that i mean that the military people, like shinseki, stated at the outset that it would require a higher number deployment. they were slapped down and replaced with people who gave the answers that were wanted.

as referrence, note that gulf I saw a u.s. deployment of 665.5 thousand troops. also, less than a 1000 killed and wounded.

basically the same initial operation, but with less than a quarter of the men. does that make sense to you ? now add to the initial op the occupation. still with the lower troop count. again, does that make sense to you ?

equipment.. the obvious ones that come up are the shortage of fully protected vests (to the extent that people had to buy and send them over privately) and the armoring of the humvees (which were never intended for anything other than personnel carriage). guys have had to go through junk to find anything that will give them some protection, even if the bottoms might as well be made of glass.

considering that these were supposed to be part of the infamous 87 billion that kerry got hung on (well, actually, only about 67b was military $. the rest is a non-repayable loan to iraq. it was the non-repayable part that kerry didn't like. me either. thanks john, ya tried man...), why wasn't that taken care of immediately ?

so, while you say that 200b isn't cheap (it sure ain't !!), it's the appearance that the money isn't getting spent on the troops first and foremost that makes me say that the administration is waging war on the cheap.

why do we never see you on television, simply sitting at your desk in the oval office and giving us the straight up without a lot of photo-oping (and photoshoping in at least one case) ? mr. president, if america is truly a country at war and you are "the war president" as you and others claim, why are you, the vice president, the cabinet and the entire congress on month long vacations instead of in washington d.c., getting it done ?".

Getting what done???And don't say "winning the war". That's the Pentagon's job...it is the President's job to make sure we have the resources to do it. I've heard no complaints from the military saying that his many vacations have hampered that task.

yep, it is the pentagon's job to win the war. it is the president's job to ride herd, not to just sit back and say "bring it on". at this point, it's glaringly apparent that the pentagon isn't winning the war. meanwhile, the president and the secretary of defense are wandering around in texas and phoning it in.

are you really satisfied with the way things are going ? do you really believe that everything that should or can be done is being done ?

do believe that there's more to being commander in chief than talk ? shouldn't he be leading ? just a little bit ? anything would be an improvement on that count.

doesn't it bother you that in the schiavo case, it was all "quick fellas, we gotta get back to d.c. and save terry, some people want to kill her !!", but in the case of 150k or so american soldiers it's "i'll be out of the office for 5 weeks. page me if you need me.". 5 weeks. the longest presidential vacation on record, and in what is constantly called the time of a nation at war.

camp david isn't good enough for george bush ? not enough brush clear away ? what the hell ?

let me put it this way. a real leader leads by example.

do you think that george bush, his administration and his (republican controlled) congress are leading by example ?

or are they just mouthing platitudes, buzz phrases and talking points while somebody else does the fighting and dying for their vision ?

are ya gettin' my drift ?

Real Texans don't respond to bull$hit either.