The morale issue relies on the opinions of soldiers in determining overall unit morale. I’ve seen first hand that this is not always a reliable measurement.
When I was stationed in Sigonella, and we were mobilized for the Yugoslav conflict, anyone there would have reported low morale. We were all working long hours under less than ideal conditions. Nobody felt like we had enough materiel support. In addition, a new Officer-in-Charge and some personal problems among the crew contributed to this overall perception.
Through it all, though, we performed our job flawlessly, to the point that the unit was given a Joint Meritorious Unit Award and a Navy Unit Commendation. We also had decent retention, even winning a Golden Anchor one year for reenlistments and promotions.
I remember clearly discussing the perceived low morale with my division officer at the time, and he allowed as how it didn’t matter whether we were always perfectly happy, only that we could always do our jobs.
That’s not to say, of course, that morale and mission readiness is hunky-dory in Iraq. Just that I don’t rely on polls to make these determinations. That’s what a chain of command is for.
I don’t think anyone has said there isn’t a chance, but you and those of your ilk seem to believe it’s a foregone conclusion.
Would you say there’s a chance, yes just a chance, that Mrs. Sheehan, who lost her son in a war, and whose been denouncing this war prior to her first meeting with Bush is sincere? Is there a chance, just a chance that she may simply find it convenient to post on Moore’s and MoveOn’s web site, simply because they are an expedient way to speak to like-minded people?
It’s *your * assertion. Just tell us how you reached that conclusion - if in fact it *is * the product of reasoning based on facts.
Tell us what you mean by “linked”, while you’re at it - is it the same way Saddam was “linked” to Osama?
Steph, you could save yourself a ton of embarrassment by simply reading the material you’ve already been given. Your claim, btw, that a person’s getting a divorce is evidence of “twisted Bush-hating extremist” politics is, well, quite remarkable.
This point can’t be stressed enough I think. Why is there a need to think this woman is being influenced by anything else about her view about the war other than the death of her son? Occam must be spinning in his grave.
Of course, that’s a rhetorical question, everybody with a brain sees it’s an ad hominem attack on her. But likely a counter-productive one, in my opinion. If I was a strong supporter of the war I would counter her view with whatever reasons I would have for supporting the war, and point out that unfortunately people die in wars. I suppose the people who try to counter Sheehan’s view with these “she’s been brainwashed by Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter and Barbara Streisand and the pulsating brain of Che Guevara in John Kerry’s rec room aquarium” theories must not be too confident of their arguments in support of the war anymore.
If the war was justified, no other arguments are needed to counter this woman’s claims. All this bullshit about who’s influencing her and her divorce is classic textbook ad hominem.
MrMoto, I agree with you this time around. Low morale does not necessarily equate mission failure. I simply provided that cite to counter Sam’s own Panglossian view.
I’d also like to add that as a father of a soon to be of draft-age boy, myself, I can certainly understand the need for many a family member of those in service to attempt to find some sort of “noble cause” in this sordid mess. After all no one wants to die for “nothing,” much less volunteer to do so. But yet that is precisely what those of us who opposed this war all along – and the many that have “flip-flopped” since – have been saying all along.
What did Casey die for? What was truly so urgent/important to the US’s vital interests that the dogs of war, with all the horrific consequences (both known and unknown, if I may borrow from Rumsfeld) of doing so, had to be let out?
And that’s exactly the question/indictment that Mrs. Sheehan wants the President to answer. Problem is, outside dogmatic faith in policies that have already backfired just like many of us predicted they would, manipulated charges against Iraq and post 9/11 emotional exploitation, he does not have one.
What was that Kerry said about ‘asking the last man to die for a mistake’? Seems particularly apropos under the circunstances.
Meant to preview. That last paragraph should read:
What was that Kerry said about ‘asking the last man to die for a mistake’? It would seem particularly apropos under the circunstances – 'cept this was no mistake. Those that launched this war knew exactly what they were doing. To the point of starting the war that is…the rest was all faith-based. And we can all see how well that’s going.
[QUOTE=Revtim]
This point can’t be stressed enough I think. Why is there a need to think this woman is being influenced by anything else about her view about the war other than the death of her son? Occam must be spinning in his grave.
QUOTE]
Because she’s already met with Bush. She could’ve called him a ‘murderer’ to his face. She didn’t. She said nice things about him.
But now, all of a sudden, she’s calling him a “liar” and a “murderer” and…well, how 'bout that? She’s also posting daily on Michael Moore’s website. It doesn’t take a genius to suspect that something funny is going on.
I’d like to know who came up with idea of camping out at Bush’s ranch. That kind of tactic, along with exploiting grieving mothers for ratings and box-office, has Michael Moore’s fingerprints all over it. I suspect that some wacko Bush-hating group suggested the idea to her and has been supporting her financially all along. I’d simply like to know how far back her connection with Moore goes. I think we have the right to know. Don’t you?
Goddamn you’re a dense little one aren’t you. I’ve already given you a valid cite where your above assumptions are shown false. That is the original 2004 source of all of the shit the right been flinging like three year old Macaques.
Moreover, your conspiratorial suspicions don’t mean a tinker’s damn in the real world. I give you info, educate yourself. The Swiftboaters lied, and Sheehan didn’t like the Bush policy prior to her first visit.
Do you actually believe these attacks on her regarding Moore disprove her arguments and claims? If so, you have a very basic misunderstanding of logic.
Surprise, surprise. More of the same crapola that makes trying to have a civilized debate with many neocons like debating a brick wall. Seems to be SOP these days…
Initiate ad hominem attack
Receive evidence showing already flimsy substance behind attack is horseshit
Ignore evidence
Reassert ad hominem attack
Repeat step #4 until people get so sick of hearing it that many of them start to believe it’s true
Stephe96, your method of asserting your point of view reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons where Marge asks Homer what he wants for dinner, and he keeps going “Steak?” over and over again until Marge caves.
No they did not. Some of their claims lacked complete evidence, but most of what they claimed was accurate. Sam Stone did a good job back in the many trainwreck threads pointing this out. Just because he was outnumbered twenty to one doesn’t mean that this issue is settled.
Nobody has claimed she did. Her story has changed on other elements of the meeting. Specifically, the reaction of Bush and his concern/caring or lack therof. She’s done a complete 180 on this. Also, she’s done a complete 180 on the issue of confronting Bush. At first she wanted to respect what her son would have wanted and be civil to Bush. Now she’s thrashing about wildly at Bush, Neocons, the media in general, Isreal, you name it. Simply pointing this out does not make a “smear”. It’s just reporting the full truth. The entire premise of this OP is bullshit. That so many have come forward to defend it is telling.
