I was basically saying that the press corps is bored, 'cause their ain’t much to do here in August, thus the inordinate amount of coverage given to crazy neighbors, and nutty drivers.
Thus, if Bush were here, in TX (not that he doesn’t have a right to be here) the press corps would have something to talk about. I’m sure there’s someone in DC screwing their secretary.
Your main point remains. Despite what all of the crazy radio guys are saying, it’s not that Sheehan is a media darling, it’s that they have to write about something.
She has more moral authority to speak the truth about this conflict than people who supported this war from the beginning, claiming that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction that were so threatening to the security of the United States that we had to invade immediately, and then continued to claim it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People who claimed this were wrong, and as a result, a whole lot of people are dead who would not otherwise be dead while Osama bin Laden still breathes free and other, real threats to the Republic fester untreated. And yet these same people want to continue to define “moral authority”, “truth” and “patriotism,” despite their blatant disregard for the truth. Frankly, it makes me sick.
The point of this protest is not to talk to the President, but to shame him for the untruths and failures that have cost us so many lives and so much treasure. “Come and lie to my face,” says Cindy Sheehan, and George W. Bush demurrs, just like she knew he would. It’s a trap, and there’s no way out for Bush. If he meets with her, he’s fucked. If he doesn’t meet with her, he’s fucked. Eerily similar to the situation in Iraq right now, isn’t it?
Mr. Moto, I must say, that for someone who whips out your Naval Service to prove your *moral * authority on military issues, your lack of the ability to assign a similar authority to Mrs Sheehan is quite startling.
I don’t have to agree with her, to recognize her moral athority to believe the way she does.
I rarley agree with you, but I understand that you speak for a fair number of vets, so yes, on occasion, your opinion has more weight than others
Why does she have more “moral authority”? Because she opposes the war? Because her son, who obviously supported the war, was killed by an Iraqi? I didn’t realize having your son die conferred moral authority on your political views.
I agree with Jon Stewart on this one. He made a great point about this on his show last night. Showing all the right wing commentators (all on Fox news) calling Cindy a media whore. Then showing these same right wingers all upset and crying about the sanctity of life in the Teri Schivo case.
So a womans life in a veggi state, is more important to them, then a mothers grief over the death of her son? If four months ago, when Bush was on vacation again, the Schivo parents camped outside his ranch, does anyone NOT think Bush wouldn’t have meet with them? Bush would have had them in his house and having tea faster than you could say “hypocrite”.
The longer Bush is in office the more I weep for the future of our country. The hypocrisy from his administration and supporters makes me gag.
My husband re-enlisted even though he didn’t support it. He had a variety of reasons for re-enlisting but mostly it was because he didn’t want to “abandon” his unit. But he never supported this war.
I “whip” out my Naval Service at times when I must establish my bona fides as an expert on those military subjects I have experience in. This is not an assertion of moral authority, merely an assertion of experience and training that backs up my knowlege.
On a great many other occasions, which I will happily cite, I have explicitly stated that merely being a veteran doesn’t give special moral weight to someone’s arguments.
The closest you can come to your assertion is a thread a good while back where I stated that I understood the reasons behind the military’s ban on gay soldiers openly serving. Considering that I don’t support this ban, this isn’t much for you to go on.
If you have evidence that I think a veteran’s arguments should be given greater moral status, please present it.
If your opposition to a war is so weak that you’ll re-enlist when you know there is a good chance that you’ll go fight the war, then I question your opposition in the first place. People simply don’t sign up for military duty if they feel strongly about the war that military is fighting.
So now it’s a matter of degree? Just admit that you simply don’t know, and are making not-well-founded assumptions. Just like the one above where it’s stated that the divorce is also due to this.
However, that said, I don’t see anywhere that she’s even claiming he son was against the war. He’s still dead, and she’s still pissed. I don’t see where his stance is relevant at all.
No, I would say my assumption is well-founded. It makes no sense that her son would oppose the war but re-enlist, knowing that it’s likely he’ll be sent to fight in the war. Sure, I suppose he could have done that, but I would question either his intelligence or his sanity. Since I’m assuming that he’s intelligent and sane, then I also assume that he supported the war. There is no other assumption to make.
His stance is tangentially relevant. She is exploiting his death because she opposes the war. However, if he supported the war (as it seems clear he did), then it seems a tad hypocritical for her to be using his death to further her political aims, which are completely opposite of his.
It’s not a matter of her being “pissed.” Of course she’s mad. I think any mother, Republican or Democrat, is mad when her kid dies. This is a question of exploiting his death to further her political cause – a political cause that was not shared by her son.
Once again. You do not know that her son was for the war. Even at the high end (if you believe Sam Stone), there is 80% approval of the war from members of the military. That means that almost 200 people killed in Iraq were against this war.
I have already said that not only did my husband re-enlist although he was against the war, but I know of at least two other people who have. The military is what they do for a living. Just because you are afraid you might get hurt on the job doesn’t mean you don’t go to work.
But I still don’t see where it’s relevant. She’s not claiming he was against the war. You see, I have this theory. When I’m dead, I’m dead. Drag me through the streets, hang me from a tree, chop me in little pieces, and have me as a snack. I think way too many people are concerned for the dead, and not for the living.
Bush went to war to secure a steady supply of cheap oil for the U.S. All other considerations were secondary. But do you really believe enriching his oil buddies was not a factor in the decision?
So, the Bush-hatin’ bandwagon makes another stop. Is anyone really jumpin on/off because this woman chooses to grieve in this fashion? My sympathies aside, I think not.
If these military members don’t approve the war, they show this by refusing to re-enlist. I’d be willing to say that there may have been a number of people in the military who enlisted before the war who are pissed about the war. However, if you’re signing up after the war started (or re-enlisting) and know that with your speciality or that your unit is headed over there, then it would be idiotic to do this if you were opposed to the war.
Was your husband in danger of being shipped to Iraq?
It’s not a matter of “getting hurt on the job.” It’s also a matter of being part of a group of people who kill others, and risk being killed, to advance political objectives. I find it hard to believe that anyone would sign up to risk his life, and take the life of others, to advance a political objective that he does not believe in.
I’m simply saying it’s pretty shitty to use your dead son to advance your political objectives. I’m also saying it’s extremely shitty to do this when your son did not agree with you.
Yep, because it makes no sense. Why would he want to expand the supply of oil on the world market? If he was trying to enrich his oil buddies he would want to restrict supplies of oil so that those already producing it (his buddies) would make more profits.
There’s also plenty of profit in the sweetheart contracts the CPA awarded to U.S. companies, such as Halliburton, to run the Iraqi oilfields. And if the new government retakes control of the oil, there will still be plenty of profit in it for the U.S. companies already on the ground – or at least, the oil companies seem to think so, to the point that they have thwarted the ideological neocons’ plan to “privatize” the Iraqi oil industry. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=313511
And why would restricting the oil supply be profitable for U.S. oil companies (as opposed to the foreign companies/governments that actually own the oilfields)? They just have to pay a higher price for crude, and pass that along to the end consumers.
The difference, of course, is that I’m not saying that any of the candidates I’ve supported are absolute moral authorities about anything.
Some people are claiming such about Cindy Sheehan, though. Maureen Dowd called her statements the absolute moral authority of a mother who has lost her son to war.
