NEWS: Grieving Mother's Campaign Against Bush's War

Originally posted by shaunybaby
that's just hypocritical on the parent's behalf. they are probably proud of their children going to war as are the children themselves, as soon as they come home in a coffin wrapped in a flag its 'bush murdered my son!'.

parents are obviously going to be upset, this is their only way of venting their frustration.

" they are probably proud of their children going to war as are the children themselves, as soon as they come home in a coffin wrapped in a flag its 'bush murdered my son!'."

That is a lot of conjecture. How about this, the kid was poor and Bush and his elk used his money problems in turning him into a sadistic killer?? What no proof? All theiry and nothing to pack it up? No place as a valid opinion without some form of evidense to support my claim?

You are absolutely right. Maybe he was proud to serve, many are. Maybe he was broke, many are. The deal is though neither of us know, all we do know is that a mother lost her son in a war based on lies - that is a fact. Whther the war based on lies will serve some greater historical purpose is still a mystery, but that she, he and all of us were lied to by Bush and such is beyond debate.

If there is any justice Bush, and his cohorts, will stand on war crimes when this tripe is over.

slank, as mentioned:

as posted by seekerof
Apparently, according to you and the driven anti-war media, nothing, nada, absolutely el'zippo of usefulness or good is being done in Iraq.

You repeat retort #1:

as posted by slank
Can ANYONE tell me a single useful thing for America that has been acomplished in Iraq?

Echo #2:

as posted by slank
Obviously it is beyond Seekerof's capacity.

Is there a single tangible positive for America result of the war in Iraq?

And again, I will not attempt to thwart your embedded beliefs and conceptions, but simply supply you with but one mention and retort backing what I implied originally:

Almost a century and a half later, no serving flag or general officers are on record advocating the extermination of journalists. Still, despite the success of the embed process and the tens of millions of dollars spent on public affairs infrastructure, relations continue to be strained. Military officers constantly lament that most of the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan went unnoticed, while every little setback or problem seemingly received national attention. Many believe national policy is set by the media intent on painting every U.S. military commitment as an unwinnable quagmire.

They are right.

Who's Responsible for Losing the Media War in Iraq?
The Media and GI Joe: How the press gets the military wrong -- and why it matters.
Media and Military
Bad Intentions Stay That Way
Media Bias Keeps 'Good' Iraq News From U.S. Public
THE MEDIA AND IRAQ
Robert Kaplan on the Media and the Military
Military Blindness in the Media - And Beyond, v1.4
“War of Attrition”


But in all fairness, unlike you, the military bears fault, as well, in the inability to thwart and respond to the media backlash:

The military laments that its successes in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone unnoticed, while any bad news is immediately set on by a national media intent on painting every U.S. commitment as a quagmire. This might be true, but the military is not without responsibility for this state of affairs.

Other than what the above quoted section imply, discussing this matter, other than the topic itself, is no longer of priority to me. You will simply believe and retort with what you believe. Circle logic.






seekerof

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Seekerof]

I knew an old lady who felt the same about her son being sent off to "help the damn Limeys" in WWII. I've heard others complaining about their brothers being drafted to "save the damn Jews" 30-40 years after the Nazi menace was crushed in Europe.

Years ago, they were considered bitter folks, or hateful people using the war to spread anti semitic disease.

The same attitude now is ramped up by the Media to fit their anti-government agendas. Anything that hurts the current administration. Partisanistas look for another "boost my side by hurting their side" weapon.

Anyone remember the big press coverage of parents of dead solders protesting Clinton's actions Somalia and Bosnia?....oh, wait...

Phugedaboudet, are you honestly comparing the validity of the Iraq War to that of World War 2?

Cindy Sheehan is using the death of her son to political grandstand.

As did the Bush Administration with 9/11 to further thier own agenda. Quite the small world, no?

As for the success in Iraq, it's become quite apparent that bar democratic elections that have run in that country, it's still a war torn country that was abused by American intervention decades before; Saddam was, do remember, abetted by America for quite some time, even while they knew of his 'crimes' which the Bush Administration would later use as a justification for war.

This womens plight is obviously hard-felt, and if you are mothers who have lost thier children, you can not begin to understand the pyschology behind her accord; speculate a priori, without a doubt, however, it's still a very personal and intimate accord.

Luxifero

I get so sick and tired of the "no WMD's found" rant.


Precursor chemicals were found. Dual use crap in proportions necessary for chemical weapons. Troops first in even sent back souvenir pics of the stashes. Along with pics of piles of cash to try to peacefully work with local mullahs, who had no intention of peace and used the cash to fund insurgent operations.

Problem is, some of it was American. The rest, hidden as not to upset our European "allies" in the french and the germans.

Lines of heavy trucks leaving Baghdad during the hours before the invasion, when we were "warning" them repeatedly. Large amounts of cash also raided from government banks. Cash that managed to show up with the death of Saddam's son not too long ago.

But then, the same folks who buy the "no WMD's found" line are the same folks who support the drug dealers, who flush the stash when the cops are coming in the front door. They hear the flush but will do anything at all to deny that anything illicit went down the hole.

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
I knew an old lady who felt the same about her son being sent off to "help the damn Limeys" in WWII. I've heard others complaining about their brothers being drafted to "save the damn Jews" 30-40 years after the Nazi menace was crushed in Europe.

Years ago, they were considered bitter folks, or hateful people using the war to spread anti semitic disease.

The same attitude now is ramped up by the Media to fit their anti-government agendas. Anything that hurts the current administration. Partisanistas look for another "boost my side by hurting their side" weapon.

Anyone remember the big press coverage of parents of dead solders protesting Clinton's actions Somalia and Bosnia?....oh, wait...

One was a world war where everyone was really out fighting a known menece. Iraq, was - well - LIES. See the difference? I can see the difference.

Originally posted by subz
You've pretty much missed the point of this thread Muaddib. Can you remain on topic: A grieving mother wants to meet with President Bush.

Do you think he should or shouldnt meet with her. What UNMOVIC has to do with this is beyond me.

I did not miss the point of this thread at all. It is exactly the same as so many other threads, just to bash and blame the administration. People have a right to say what they are thinking, last time i checked I am a member of these forums, so I also have a right to say what I think.

And btw subz, I was responding to another member. If you didn't like the response, you can just ignore it, is that simple.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Muaddib]

It's a shame this grieving woman lets herself be used so shamelessly--ah well, she was probably vulnerable and easy to manipulate.

Originally posted by Seekerof
It appears that now, because of the manipulation of the anti-war folks [ie:groups, organizations, etc.] of the party of hate, she, in her continued anger and sorrow, has become an anti-war tool, who is using her son's death for political grandstanding purposes. Pretty sad and low when the anti-war left has to use and manipulate the anger and sorrow of this woman to their contrieved ways and purposes. Then many wonder why the Democrats are claeed the Party of Hate?

I guess I didn't realize that only Democrats were against the war, and that being against the war is somehow hateful. Is war an act of love? I must have missed that somewhere along the lines.

The Party of Hate™ put forth a Presidential candidate in the recent election who supported the war, only quibbling with how it was being carried out rather than whether or not we should have done it.



[edit on 8-8-2005 by spamandham]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
It's a shame this grieving woman lets herself be used so shamelessly--ah well, she was probably vulnerable and easy to manipulate.

Blatent cop out. Couldn't it equally be said of those that support the war? Afterall it was confirmed lies that put the US in IRAQ, and yet some people seem to still support it, talk about being used and easy to manipulate.

Originally posted by chebob
Just can't stand people thinking the war was illegal and wrong can you? Someone dares to grieve for a child lost in a pathetic, destructive, terror-breeding War, and all of a sudden it's the "hug terrorists and give them kisses and roses crowd". Is it really needed? It's almost getting troll-ish.

Well, those of us who see reasons for this war being fought keep recieving labels such as, "nazis", "warmongers" etc, so I think it is fair to call "terrorist lovers", or "terrorist huggers," etc those same people who label us.

If we ever reach a point where we only have decent, civilized discussions, and respect for everyone's points of views in these forums without anyone being called nazi, warmonger, etc, or even implying links with "the third reich"....... then you can expect the same response from me, and probably other Republicans in these forums.

But I don't really expect truly civilized responses from many people around here.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, there were radical Muslims committing suicide attacks and other terrorist attacks before this war....9\11 happened before this war, and no other major terrorist attack has happened in the US, so the government is doing a good job.

Terrorists will find any excuse to make terrorist attacks, their main goal is for you and everyone in the world to become a radical Muslim, accept their radical views of Islam, and to destroy western civilization, but some people expect the coalition just to stand still and let the war come to the US and Europe.

I am of the opinion that we should bring the war to the terrorists doorstep, and that is exactly what the coalition is doing....or you just can't stand people thinking that this war is not illegal and it is not wrong?

BTW, this discussion is not "almost getting trollish", it has been trollish for quite a while, but i guess as long as the trolls attack Republicans it is alright.

Could someone please tell me the reasons again for this war. I have lost count. First it was the WMD, then it was Saddam, then it was spreading Democracy....

Man come on, there are no reasons for this other than texas tea - that is the middle and both ends of the story. There were no WMDs, you got Saddam(although no one really knows why that was needed, seeing as it couldn't be for the Iraqi people with what has been going on there) and as for spreading democracy, that isn't even funny to joke about.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I feel bad for any mother who has lost a son in the war.

But I can't help but think that this particular mom, is using her sons death to further a personal hatred of Bush..Her son was on a second tour. having re-enlisted. So he knew what was up. He was there because he felt a sense of duty.

I only hope that her "munchausen by proxy"-like need for attention, will eventually give way to a realization, that her son gave his life for something that is bigger than her.

She should be proud of her son as she grieves.

Yeah. She is dishonoring her son in doing this.

repeat post

[edit on 8/8/2005 by QuietSoul]

According to DRUDGE this lady is having a hard time keeping her stories straight.


2004

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

2005

"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

Originally posted by Passer By
talk about being used and easy to manipulate.

Sounds like an autobiography.

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by Passer By
talk about being used and easy to manipulate.

Sounds like an autobiography.

Very witty, care to elaborate, or is it cool down time for the hamster you have writting your lines?

You made a statement, I mentioned it can be completely flipped around, and that being used and manipulated seems to be more of a factor with those who beleive in this war even after being told they were lied too.

If you can't back up a claim with something resembling a coherent thought, or rational, then you are hardly in a position to make snide remarks. OK sparky?

Here are a few comments for you PasserBy:

The U.S. & the U.K. may have led the coallition into Iraq for the wrong publicly stated reason, but that doesn't make what they are doing wrong. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have gone into Iraq. There were plenty of other reasons to throw Saddam Hussein and his regime out on the street. Does anyone in the world really dispute that he was abusing the Iraqi people? Does anyone think he was a nice guy who had the best intrests of his countrymen at heart? Does anyone not know that he used WMD's on the Kurds? That he was attempting to develop atomic weapons and would have done so if not for Israeli efforts earlier and the coallition efforts in 1991 and afterwards.

Inside Iraq, most Iraqi's know the U.S. led coallition is not there to take over their country and force them to do things against their own beliefs, but some Iraqi's don't yet realize this. Further, some ignorant, mostly extremely poor, or idealistic people inside Iraq and in nearby countries have been fed inflamatory propaganda by entrenched, so called, religious and political groups that stand to lose much of their power, prestige and influence when and if the government of Iraq goes democratic. Furthermore, political dissidants and opposition politicians outside of Iraq (generally, but not always, inside the countries of the coallition partners) promote disunity and factionalism as a means of enhancing their own prestige and/or increasing their chances of election in the near future, or of gaining some leverage for their own agenda. Moreover, some non involved countries, which likewise stand to lose power, prestige and influence in Iraq, or in some cases lucrative business contracts or investments, speak out against coallition efforts. While yet others worry that their country could be next. Stir into this mix the pacificists and horrow stricken who oppose all armed efforts on personal moral grounds. (If I left any group out, forgive me, my mind went numb.) Finally, exacerbating this complex, difficult, delicate situation is an international press corps which sensationalizes events on a daily basis as an accepted and "normal" course of doing business. Put all these ingredients in a large oven & broil at high heat and what you end up with is a recipe for complete frustration and ineffectiveness. It's an absolute miracle that anything gets accomplished at all.

The saddest part of all this is that it's the Iraqi people themselves who suffer. The coallition is trying to bring electricity to those without it, they are trying to repair and improve the water & sewage systems, they are trying to build new and better schools and hospitals, fix the roads, organize a police force, etc., etc., etc.. They aren't trying to force anything on anyone, least of all some particular sort of government or way of thinking. And you know what, they are doing it with their own money and resources--at huge expense, even while their own people are dying in the effort.

Just what would you have them do that they aren't already trying? Would you have them simply walk away and leave things as they are? Just leave the poor people there to their own devices? Let the lawless elements take over and beat them down again? Let some group like the Taliban or Al Qaeda take power and gear up for more attacks like 9/11, or 7/7? The world should be proud of what the coallition is doing, not throw rocks at them for trying.


[edit on 8-8-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by slank
.
Muaddib,
And are you going to explain why over 100,000 Iraqis had to die when they had zero connection to 911?

Those numbers keep being thrown around but the real data shows differently.

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq

Min 23456 Max 26559

Excerpted from.
www.iraqbodycount.net...

Iraq has been a terrorist training camp for a long while and Saddam was not only allowing this to happen, he was paying terrorists and the families of terrorists who committed suicide attacks.

Not only that but Saddam was breaking the UN sanctions and there was evidence of a wmd program, what was never found in Iraq were STOCKPILES of wmd.

Saddam was supposed to destroy all wmd related material but he did not, including empty chemical warheads, centrifuges which Iraqi scientists were told to bury until the west stopped looking for wmd programs in Iraq, tons of documents which dealt with making and restarting wmd programs, and other evidence which we have posted in these forums time and time again.

To make matters worse Elements of Saddam's regime had orders, and shot in many occasions American and Brittish aircraft in the no-fly zone in Iraq, that alone was a declaration of war against the US and Brittain.

Originally posted by slank
Especially in light of the fact that the perpetrators supposedly all came from Saudi Arabia and Saudi money was used to train these terrorists and support radical hate filled islamic clerics?

Yes there are radicals in Saudi Arabia, but the government of Saudi Arabia is not promoting or paying these terrorists, and in fact they have arrested terrorists, something that Saddam did not do.

BTW, evidence from Spain linked one of the terrorists that was involved in 9/11 with the Iraqi embassy. Saddam was known to pay terrorists and support them.

Originally posted by slank
NEWSFLASH!
Iraq had no WMDs.

If you actually spent some time looking at the evidence and the statements not only from Iraqi scientists but even former Russian military personnel you might change your mind about that statement.

Originally posted by slank
Iraq had no connection to 911.

That's what "some" media outlets want you to think. It is very strange that quite a few of the same members of these forums who say that "the media is owned and controlled by the government" use stories that are given by the media when it fits their views.

Originally posted by slank
Iraq didn't used to have terrorist training grounds.

Wrong, there were terrorist camps in Iraq before the war started, one of them was known as Salman Pak which had it's own old Boeing 707 where terrorists trained to hijack planes.

www.intelmessages.org...

There is a lot more evidence which you can find in the forums if you do a search. I am not going to go over this again, more so because we have really gone off topic, but i just had to respond to your response because you seem to be misinformed.

Originally posted by slank
We have funneled 9 billion dollars to unknown elements in Iraq. I would say with certainty that at least some of that money is funding terrorism and insurgents in Iraq.

What evidence do you have to support that any of that money is being "funneled to unknown elements in Iraq"?

Originally posted by slank
Iraq is a disaster that is an escalating source of harm to America.
Lies about aluminum rocket tubes were used to sell an otherwise skeptical American public on this Iraq Disaster.
The planning and realistic assesment of Iraqi sentiments and psychology were non-existent.

Yes Iraq is a disaster, but it has been like this for a long time, at least the government in power is not trying to make terrorist attacks against the US, and now Saddam can't restart any wmd programs he was trying, or did restart.

Originally posted by slank
Guess What! It looks like it could be leading to a civil war between Suni and Shiite muslims while the Kurds simply want a separate nation altogether.

This has been true even before the war started. Tell me of a time when there have been no conflicts between these groups.

At least this keeps the radicals fighting in Iraq and not downtown USA or Brittain. There have been attacks by some radicals in Brittain, but at least they are not getting more attacks by radicals since they are busy fighting in Iraq.

Originally posted by slank
Now are we supposed to just stand by and wave American flags so more young Americans can be murdered to further the profits of Halibuton?

Are we supposed to stand by and allow more radicals to attack the west? or should we take the war to their own turf? i'll take the second option.

Originally posted by slank
If you support the war in Iraq you are incredibly stupid or you must hate America.

whatever.....

Originally posted by slank
Can ANYONE tell me a single useful thing for America that has been acomplished in Iraq?

Read above and you will see more than enough reasons.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Muaddib]