Is there a chance that my husband will go to Iraq? Well…fuck yeah there is. There are two wars going on right now. He was gone for nearly all of 2002 so it’s just a matter of time. I’m hoping he retires before he’s called up, but even then, with stop-loss IRR he could go tomorrow. Last time, in fact he was given about 3 days to get his shit together, and he’s in reserves!
But with your absolute assumption that people against the war won’t re-up despite evidence to the contrary, there’s nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.
Can I once again, ask how this is relevant? What difference is his very, very, dead opinion? If I die doing something my mom disapproves of, say drinking drunk, does she not have the right to speak out against drunk drivers.
Hey! You just can’t go around throwing in the word “absolute” without getting called on it. Who here said “absolute”?
I consider her moral authority to be weighted. Just as I would say my moral authority on scientific areas such as stem cells, or animal research is weighted, since I have direct experience with them. Just as yours is with the military.
Practical knowledge is always more valuable than theoretical.
I think Sheehan has an good point–which I’d sum up as “I think my son died for a cause that isn’t what you told us it was. This is wrong.”
But to “demand a meeting” makes her sound naive, at best, and smacks of grandstanding at worst. Someone else said it just right–it’s a trap. What is Bush supposed to say at a meeting like this? What is his obligation to meet with grieving family members who demand it? There are widows, mothers, fathers, siblings, children of 1800 Americans, all who have suffered similar losses. And uncounted others who have injuries.
I think Bush flubbed the war and he’s flubbed the way he has continued to sell it. His message has fallen flat on more ears than just Sheehan’s. Furthermore, he has had a very hamfisted response to her thus far. But I also feel he hasn’t wholly lost the moral high ground on this, because she is making what I believe to be an unreasonable demand. She’s hurting her own cause, IMHO, because not everyone will believe her demand is just a symbolic gesture. If she were to propose that he address the American people about the war, especially in light of ongoing intelligence discoveries, or that he respond a set of questions(put forth by a panel of grieving military familes, for example), it would be something a lot harder to brush off. He might still say no, or ignore her, but it would be harder to dismiss Sheehan as shrill, unrealistic, or self-centered. Of course, I suppose such a proposal would get less media attention. I just hate that we pander to the most dramatic.
Some of the media in support of her is naive and annoying. Salon gave her credit for “almost single-handedly launching an American antiwar movement.” Oh please.
Hah! I just knew you were going to say this, mister predictable! I have more moral authority on those things which I know more about by default. I know exactly how a lab animal is treated, and killed, I know where stem cells come form, exactly what stage of growth they are in, and what the prospects are. Therefore, I can make more morally sound judgments than a layman.
Just as you know what being in a military unit is like, and thus you have a more morally informed opinion of what goes on. For example, (I don’t know what your MOS was but, I think you were a pilot) if you were to hear of how bombing was indiscriminate, you would have a more moral understanding than me.
How about “I am deeply sorry for your loss, Mrs. Sheehan. By everyone’s account, Casey was a good person and a good soldier. Although we disagree on the necessity of the war in Iraq, I respect your position. Please accept my assurances that I will not keep our soldiers in harm’s way any longer than necessary, and that I believe fulfilling their mission is the best thing for our nation, the people of Iraq, and the world.” He would be lying, of course, but why stop now?
No obligation whatsoever. Smart politics, though, or at least it would have been before this built up to the point where any meeting would be seen as caving in. Personally, I hope he continues to “go on living [his] life” as indifferently and as callously as possible, as it just draws further attention to the moral vacuum at the center of George W. Bush’s soul.
Since when is it per se unreasonable to ask for a meeting with the commander in chief whose orders led to the death of one’s own child? The guy meets with people all the time. He’s a people person, after all. The fact that he can’t seem to spare 15 minutes for the mother of one of his dead soldiers simply because she opposes the policies that led to that death speaks volumes about this President’s “culture of life” rhetoric.
Since when does having more information mandate a more informed moral viewpoint?
As I read it, morals are subjective, while empirical knowledge woudl be objective. I don’t see the causative link.
After watching more than I care to of the Sheehan issue, I have to think that she’s been co-opted by the folks who “support” her. The fact that this thread was derailed along defining her “message” proves to me that it isn’t totally hers any longer.
Since when was morality black/white? You could say that morally stem cell research is wrong because you believe that it will be a baby person. I know that the cells we use would be destroyed by thawing, so I say it is moral.
You may say Animal research is wrong because it’s cruel. I’ve worked with the animals, and we treated them extremely humanly. I know it’s not cruel, therefore I don’t find it immoral.
I believe the those who are better informed make better “moral” decisions.
Calling the mother of a fallen US soldier a whore, are we?
You must support the troops a lot. I bet you call all their mothers whores. Someone should forward your post to some personnel serving in Iraq so they’ll know what kind of supporters they have over here among the conservatives.
I figured he said all that when he first met with her. By asking for a second meeting, she’s pretty much saying that isn’t the answer she wanted, isn’t it? Why would he agree to meet her again only to repeat an answer which he’s already given, and which she would not stomach a second time. It’s not as though he has refused to say anything at all, as if he’s been so unreasonable he hasn’t even offered platitudes. He did offer those.
Well, I think such a demand is going to appear unreasonable given the math. There are a lot of people who could lay personal tragedies at the feet of this president. While it’s emotionally and morally appealing to think he could give his time to any and all of them, it’s not feasible. That leaves him with being able to meet with a portion of them. I don’t know on what basis they choose to bestow that sort of “honor,” (cough) but you could make an argument that it should not be on “squeaky wheel” criteria. Especially when you’re talking about meeting with one person a second time, possibly at the expense of meeting with a grieving family who hasn’t had any time with the CIC.
If I lost my son to something like this, I’d be a raving lunatic. I admire Sheehan for standing up for a cause she believes in, a cause with which I have a lot of sympathy myself. But I wish she were doing it in a way that seemed less of an intense personal demand for satisfaction, and was instead a broader call for the President’s reckoning for everything that’s happened to our troops over there.
I said just the opposite…morality is subjective, meaning it varies from person to person.
I’d be with you 100% if you inserted the word “can” after the word “informed”. Just because Torquemada knew a good bit about the Catholic religion didn’t mean his whole Inquisition-thing was especially moral.
What I don’t understand is why Sheehan believes she should get an audience with the President for having a child die in combat. Why are our National policies answerable to her? I can understand why she would be upset by a loss, but I don’t see the obligatory presidential visit after she’s already had one.
Not likely in the slightest. He stayed with her until she started running hogwild with this political BS. The divorce papers state they have only been seperated since June.
Oh, please. Pretending to be nice? If they were pretending to be nice, the left would drag her ass away from there so fast the dust wouldn’t settle for an hour, and would get her to the psychiatric help she desperately needs.
As far as my not having any heart - I could respond with the classic Robert Bloch quote, but I won’t. Instead, I will simply point out two things to you:
When you resort to ad hominem attacks, it simply underlines the fact that my statement was correct.
My sympathies are with Ms. Sheehan, as I have stated. She needs mental help and I hope she gets it. Nothing heartless about that. And repeating what I mentioned earlier - I don’t see anyone on the left saying that about her, nor do I see anyone on the left doing anything to help her. I do see them exploiting her for their own devices, however, and I imagine that will continue as long as they can get one drop of negative press ink against Bush out of this whole sorry affair.
Ultimate,y Cindy just wants what millions of Americans want: for the President of the United States to tell us the truth about why we went to war.
The WMDs excuse was bullshit. The Al-Qaeda excuse was bullshit. The “fighting terrorists” excuse was bullshit. The “liberating Iraqis” excuse was bullshit. The only people who have genuinely benefitted from this war are the mercenaries, Haliburton (with their no-bid contracts), and whoever embezzled the $9 billion that’s gone missing. So why the hell are we fighting the war?
Some have been saying that Mrs. Sheehan needs mental help.
I wonder does anybody who thinks that guy who started “America’s Most Wanted” after his kid was abducted and killed is a media whore? Does HE need psychiatric attention?
It’s actually a pretty common response of people who have been gravely harmed, as Mrs Sheehan has been, to go out and fight for social justice.
Please, O mental health professional (you are a mental health professional, right?), edify us further on the specific illness Mrs. Sheehan is suffering from, and the nature of the treatment you feel would be most appropriate.
Oh, wait, you wouldn’t be accusing her of mental illness simply because you happen to disagree with her motive and tactics, would you?
Some of it, yes. But they apparently did not discuss their differing opinions on the war itself, nor the reasons asserted as justification for the war. At the time, she says she decided not to cause a stir. A year later, she wants some straight answers. A bit late, sure, but not an unreasonable request in and of itself.
But so far as we know, only one of them is requesting a meeting. If it were a matter of thousands of grieving parents, each asking for their own meeting with the President, than you’d have a pretty good point on the sheer logistics of it. One parent, for one short meeting in the middle of a five-week vacation . . . not so much.
I’ve read this all along as primarily a call for the latter item. Sheehan is just putting a specific face on the request for a broad explanation of why on earth we got into this mess and how on earth he intends to get us out of it. An attempt to shame him into an explanation, really. Fine with me.
Hmmm, she personally is now saying that it was the stress of her son’s death which caused the separation. But I could chose to believe you, because Lord knows there’s nothing stressful about the death of your eldest son.
Or pretending in that they aren’t calling her a whore, or blaming her for disgracing her son
I do not think this word ad hominem means what you think it does. Once again, I wonder how you are so prescient. I have seen her, and although she is passionate, she doesn’t seem overly so. Perhaps the left isn’t saying she’s nuts because they don’t think she is.
You are right, I should have put “can”, or more importantly, “should”.
Here’s where I stand on this: I think Bush is making an effort to meet with the families. He’s making an effort, but not a very big effort, ‘cause on Saturday he had a pretty tight schedule
so I can see how he wouldn’t have time to see her.
Be that as it may. I admire her spunk. I admire anyone, even those I don’t agree with, who take action when they feel wronged. I may not agree with them, but it’s admirable to get off one’s ass and do something.
Do I think the President should meet with her? Politically, I think he really should. Since he’s been meeting with so many families anyway, and since I don’t think it’s a slippery slope, I think he could take the wind out of everyone’s sails by simply meeting with her.
But he won’t. He won’t because he’s a stubborn git, who won’t back down, now matter how advantageous it would be. Politically that’s very good for the left.
What “moral authority” does the pro-war side have? Bush said Iraq threatened the United States with weapons of mass destruction. Bush said Iraq supported al Qaeda, and was likely to give them weapons of mass destruction. Bush said these were the reasons we should invade Iraq. These reasons turned out to be false. Casey Sheehan, and a whole bunch of other people, are dead as a result of Bush’s lies while the real culprits of September 11 go free. Bush’s “moral authority” is in the toilet because his words do not match reality and because his actions have caused the deaths of thousands.
My mental image of the sneer on your face when you typed those words is amusing to me.