President Bush Visits Fallen Soldiers' Families
 

Long read but it's worth it:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8941525/site/newsweek/

Cue Bush haters in 3, 2, 1...

Their last album was shitty.

Smooth operator.

He's still married to Gwen Stefani, no?

I think this is a long needed change in the administration's PR strategy. I think that Bush's attempt to look resolute by not acknowledging the casualties was probably interpreted as indifference.

Whether or not these meetings have been going on all along, it's a good thing that they are publicly acknowledging it.

I also like that they are now easing off restrictions on showing flag-draped casket pictures. It is important for the American public to know that there is some cost attached to foreign policy decisions...

I'm really not sure why this was posted, other than to say, 'Bush doesn't have to give a reason for war, he meets with the families of the dead soldiers all the time.' This story talks about Ft Bragg, which was months ago, at least. This is an obvious rebuttal to Camp Casey, but Cindy Sheehan does not want to be comforted. She wants an answer to her question of why her son died, and for what.

My question is, what changed since the last time Cindy Sheehan met with the President after her son died?

She is going through the stages of grief. It's sad to see her being taken advantage of by political/media groups

Is she being taken advantage of, or is she using it to her benefit?

I sympathize with her grief though I can't fully understand, not having a comparable situation to compare to it. I also am no fan of the war and the President's actions in leading us in to it. But I'm also puzzled by her stance, and have somewhat of a hard time sympathizing with her quest to meet with the President again until I hear from her exactly what has changed since her last meeting with him. Until that point, I can't help but feel she's using the media circus around this to make a political statement that cheapens her son's sacrifice.

It's sad to see her becoming an attention whore over her son's death. She is clearly irrational, and needs professional help. I am not making a partisan statement here - just an observation.

She knows the answers to all of the questions.

She doesn't "like" the answers. She doesn't "agree" with the answers.

No answer would satisfy her.

People who haven't lost loved ones disagree with the answers as well. They dislike the logic and the thought and keep repeating a question of which they'll NEVER find an acceptable answer.

As for the article, it's the same old, same old. The people who support Bush will say it shows that he truly does care. These are visits he doesn't have to make and by all accounts he hasn't turned these into media moments. The anti Bush crowd will make the statements that say this is a false gesture or any number of other excuses.

I support the Iraq war. Have from the start. I don't support everything GW has done in office. The fact he's visited family after family isn't surprising to me though. I think he does genuinely care for other people.

:rolleyes:

This was posted because I thought it was nice that President Bush visited some of the families of fallen soldiers. Please take that at face value.

I believe she's said that she's never received an answer to the following question: For what "noble cause" did Casey Sheehan die?

This is, of course, a rhetorical question and in fact her protest is basically a rhetorical question writ large. Bush & Co., can (& do) trot out numerous answers to this question, but in general they fail to satisfy the now 50+% of the country that doesn't think the war was worth the sacrifice.


I disagree with this strongly. If my brother dies in Iraq, but because of his sacrifice and that of his fellow soldiers the U.S. eventually adopts a less-interventionist, less-aggressive, less-insane foreign policy, then his sacrifice will not be in vain. If my brother dies in Iraq, but nothing changes with regard to U.S. foreign policy and Iraq becomes a radical Shiite Islamic republic where women have less rights than they did under Saddam and terrorists are free to operate, then his sacrifice of his life, and my family's sacrifice will have been in vain.

I appreciated the original post and I agreed with your original intention. I didn't intend to respond, but I guess some people can't help themselves:




Bullshit.

I've provided well-sourced argument after argument about why invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do from a global standpoint, a realpolitick standpoint, a strategic standpoint, and a militaristic standpoint. No one here has successfully refuted these points, and Bush & Co certainly haven't either.

Lay off being a condescending prick for a second and realize that this is not a viewpoint based on emotion. I was against this war long before my brother was even close to being deployed. This is a viewpoint based on facts and an understanding of global security issues.


When do you enlist?

Agreed.

And every time someone posts an anti-Bush article, I have to put up with the "Cue Bush apologists in 3, 2, 1" bit. I finally had a chance to say it back. Sorry that offends you when I do it, but not when the left-wing crowd does it.

And my brother has done a couple of tours over there, so it's not like I don't have a stake in this, either.

Was this intentional comedy?


Edit: I want to say that I appreciate the posting of the original article as I had not read it. I think it's impossible for Bush to meet with Sheehan again considering the political ramifications, but I agree with those who have said that they like the fact that he is at least displaying some kind of emotion about it now.

People who haven't lost loved ones disagree with the answers as well. They dislike the logic and the thought and keep repeating a question of which they'll NEVER find an acceptable answer.

Maybe, just maybe, just maybe one F'n time an anti war person won't be so damned sensitive.

There was nothing in my post saying you didn't have logical reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq. There was nothing in my post that said you didn't have solid ground to stand on. There was nothing in my post that was slanted for or against people on either side of the damned arguement.

It was a post saying that Bush can lay out his reasons and YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND THEM. Do you get it? Not that you don't have reasons for refusing that logic. Not that you don't have the right to hold those beliefs. Not that you are idiots for holding them.

Only that you will never understand the logic or reasoning because you are on the opposite side.

On second thought, nevermind, your partison reading of my post is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make.

It doesn't offend me. If you want to perpetuate the partisan sniping, have at it.

I understand, but to be fair you're leaving out other possibilities - if your brother dies in Iraq, but eventually due to his and his fellow soldiers' sacrifices that country emerges as a relatively stable democracy/republic that serves as an example for the region, then will you say he died in vain? I'm not at all certain this experiment of the NeoCons will work, but I have to consider the possibility. I still think we didn't need to go in when we did with as little support from our traditional allies and the UN as we did, but I'm not convinced there isn't a worthwhile goal in the war, even as fucked-up as the process was for selling the country on it. I do blame Bush for the number of lost lives in the sense that had he done a better job of selling the war, the burden of sacrifice wouldn't fall so heavily on the USA but would be spread among more allies.

Regarding Cindy Sheehan, I'd have a lot more sympathy to her protest if she hadn't already had a meeting with the President. Obviously her question is rhetorical, and she probably won't get an answer she likes if Bush were to acquiese and consent to see her again. If she were to drop the pretense of needing to meet with Bush and simply pose the question to the country "For what cause did my son die, and is it worth it?" then she'd have a legit statement to make.

Not at all. Prick I may be, but I'm absolutely serious about the question.

People are dying and an entire region of the globe is being destabilized. I apologize if I can't be blase about this like you can.



I understand the logic behind Bush & Co's NeoCon strategy for Iraq. I just think it's misguided and based on faulty misconceptions and bad misjudgments.


It's this kind of thinking that gives us right-wing talk shows.


Yes, nevermind attempting to defend your position when you're clearly not up to the task.

Hey Kettle, you're black.

Yes, nevermind attempting to defend your position when you're clearly not up to the task.

What task exactly? To prove to you why the war is a good thing?

I'm not in that arguement. You cannot and will not be convinced of that. I'm giving you credit, you've read the same things I have and you've came to a different conclusion. Fine. We agree to disagree. I'm not going to try to swing your opinion. Nor did I ever attempt that in my post.

Your comment about how you understand the logic behind Bush & Co's NeoCon strategy says it all. You think the logic is faulty and the judgements are bad.

On an internet message board, in a post of 500 words or less, I have about as much chance of changing your mind as the Bears have a chance of winning this years Super Bowl.

Which is why I didn't try. The original post was not an attack on the right or the left. Yet you found a way to turn it into that and are now making insults about my intellect when I NEVER attempted to justify my position on the war to you.

This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't get involved in a political thread I suppose. It's going to turn into a flame war no matter what you do or how much you try to tiptoe through the minefield.

Not at all. But you have to understand that I think the chance of that happening is exceptionally small.


That's fine, but I disagree. I've explained my point of view at length in other threads and I'm not going to rehash my understanding of the situation here.


One, I believe that's exactly what she's doing. Two, posing rhetorical questions in a media-saavy manner is what war protests are all about.

Make sure to tar yourself with the same brush on your way out.

Well, to be more precise, people were dying there before, it's just that it's U.S. Soldiers dying as well as Iraqis. Also, I would argue that you don't know that the entire region of the globe is being destabilized. Only time will tell whether a democratic Iraq will be more stable for the region or less.

[rant]I hate the fact that only deaths from suicide bombers, IEDs, etc. make the news. Why don't journalists report the good as well as the bad? Because it doesn't sell. The ramifications from this are two-fold. First, the families of those over there are more anxious than they probably should be. Second, the media wears on the people's will to see this through (whether it was right or wrong that we should've gone to war is a moot issue; we need to see this through now for the good of the region).

To put this in perspective, as of August 16, 2005, there were 1,850 soldiers and civilians (like DoD civilians) killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. While any soldier death is a tragedy, it is still a small percentage of the total soldiers that have been there. There are currently about 160,000 soldiers in Iraq. We can conceivably estimate that the total number of soldiers who have been in Iraq (counting multiple deployments, though) is around 480,000 soldiers. That means that we can estimate that 0.385% of the soldiers who go there get killed.

What about the wounded? There were 14,021 wounded as of August 16, 2005. Some were RTD, some weren't. The ones who were able to return to duty within 72 hours were RTD. The non-RTD soldiers numbered 6,759. That is an additional 1.4% to the 0.385% of soldier who were killed.

Believe me, I'm not trying to downplay the sacrifice of the soldiers who lost limbs or were killed. I'm also not trying to say that it's okay to lose soldiers. But what I am saying is that the media is putting the war in the "so many soldiers are dying" light.

It's interesting because I talked about the media with my wife this weekend. She told me that it was on TV all the time once the war began, then tapered off after a few weeks. I didn't know, because I was over there. Anyhow, it seems as if the only things that make the news are when soldiers die or there is something negative. To the contrary, I believe that there are a good many good things going on over there...some people refuse to believe it.[/rant]

If you say this now, why then did you write this:



Hey now, I think we all have great faith in Jeff Blake.


Oh? Why post this, then:


I took this to mean that you felt anti-war folks are guided by their emotions and have no understanding of logic. Was this not your intent?

I certainly agree with your well-spoken comments about the media.

However, while it's certainly valid to call for more coverage of the good that's being done in Iraq, I still think this needs to be put into context. And here's the context: the security situation isn't improving; the political process is now little more than a series of Sunni-Shiite showdowns; the Iraqi security forces are nowhere near being ready to provide security for the country.

These are big issues, and they show no sign of being resolved soon, if at all.

I took this to mean that you felt anti-war folks are guided by their emotions and have no understanding of logic. Was this not your intent?

The intent of the first line was simple. You will not find an acceptable answer. There isn't one that exists. You have made up your mind. You have your reasons. There is no more logical debate possible. It's very simple, I'm not turning you. There are wordsmiths much more brilliant than you and I who have written both for and against the war. I believe the guys who are for it, you believe the guys against it.

How hard is this to figure out?

As for the second comment you question, the anti war person comment, take it however you want to. As usual, you missed the post. Reread the quote: The ORIGINAL post was not an attack on the right or the left.

I was wrong though. I grouped people and I shouldn't have. There are a certain faction of the left who take everything as an insult. You've proven to be one of them in this thread.

No. I've examined the arguments and the facts and decided (quite a while ago) that invading Iraq was not the best option. I made this decision on my own.



Your original post characterized Cindy Sheehan in a negative manner, and then continued on to tar those who share her position with the same brush. If this was not your intent, then perhaps you should have worded it differently.


:rolleyes:

When you're unable to successfully explain or defend what you've written, it's best to attack your critic instead?

I'm completely baffled by your posts flere.

My original post did NOT characterize Cindy Sheehan in a negative manner. It simply said she knows the answers to her questions, she just doesn't agree with them. Are you really going to disagree with that? Is she or is she not asking a question that she'll never find an acceptable answer for?

That isn't putting her in a negative light, it's stating the obvious. Furthermore, I didn't go on to paint anyone in a negative light after that. I said the article would be characterized by Bush supporters one way and his critics in another. That's all.

Perhaps I wouldn't have to "defend" what I wrote if you had read the thing with a non partison eye to begin with. I stand by every word I wrote above and would not change anything I typed in that first post. You appear to be the only one who took it as an attack on the left.

And yes, I examined the war from my own standpoint as well. I read countless books and studied it intently. That study started after Kuwait and continued through there. I guess with you I have to word everything perfectly because you can't figure it out if I don't do otherwise. I'll try this one last time:

You have well thought our arguements that support your beliefs. You have researched and studied all the factors and feel you have made the correct decision. You have probably read articles and editorials from people who can turn a phrase far better than I could who were for the war. They haven't altered your opinion in the least. I don't think that opinion will be altered by me writing a five paragraph post on a front office football board. To even attempt such an endeavor would be not only a waste of my time, but a waste of yours.

I've done the same research and reached a different conclusion. I won't be convinced by your arguement. Were we to have one, the odds are about 99.9999% that we'd both walk away thinking we won the debate when neither of us would have done a thing to convince the other one of a single issue.

As it is, this is an asinine debate. If you took what I wrote to be offensive to the left, I don't really have anything more to say than what I've wrote above. I think you are stretching to find something to whine about. Have fun.

Let me be straight with you Troy, this is the initial problem:


Usually when someone uses quotes like that they do so to indicate an ulterior motive on the part of the person to whom they are referring. This is because the use of quotation remarks is usually a written analogue to the use of "air quotes" when one is speaking. And the use of "air quotes" when one is speaking about the view of another is to deride and discredit the other speaker. See The Daily Show, The O'Reilly Factor, et. al.

If you were not aware of, or did not intend this usage, then I retract any comments I've made accusing you of painting Cindy Sheehan in a negative light. Simple as that.

Having said that, your further replies make me doubt the depth of your impartiality on this subject. You may say that you'll agree to disagree, but then you follow that up wtih personal attacks. It's not an easy thing to reconcile.

So, for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your portrayal of Cindy Sheehan and retract my comments that had you painting her in a negative light. However, I'm not so sure you're willing to live and let live with the anti-war crowd. My impression is that you feel there's something inherently wrong with us. Alternatively, it may be just that you dislike me in particular. That's OK, I can live with that.

People who support the war also feel that their viewpoint is based on facts and an understanding of global security issues. You don't think we have proven our point, and likewise we don't think you have proven yours. It's not personal, it's just that we disagree on something which is very polarizing...there isn't any middle ground on this issue.

I was FULLY aware of what I was doing. I was stating fact. She knows the answer as to why went into war. She doesn't like that answer. She doesn't agree with it.

It's that simple. Tell me I'm wrong on any of that. Please, make a case to me that Cindy is truly clueless about the answers she's seeking. Her problem isn't that she's seeking an answer, it's that she doesn't like or agree with the one given. That's fine, it's her right. But to paint this as some mother who is just looking for an answer is wrong.

Do I feel there is something inherently wrong with you? No. I completely, 100% disagree with your viewpoint. Period. I think you are wrong. Just as you think I am. Olliegirl said it pretty well above.

I wonder what your reaction would have been to my comments if I hadn't clarified my position. Just take out the last line of my original post and tell me if you still think it was an attack on the left. Tell me if you could have determined my side or if I even had a side.

I don't deny this.


I think it's becoming personal. Much like with Vietnam, more and more Americans know someone directly affected by the war, which could be anything from a death to a self-employed Guardsman who lost his livelihood when he got deployed for 18 months.

That's not to say there isn't common ground. My personal feeling about someone vary greatly between a person who continues to support Bush without question and feels invading Iraq was the best thing ever, all the way to someone who supported the war initially and may still support our presence today but in the meantime has become disillusioned with the way it has been executed and by the actions of the Bush Administration.

Needless to say, there are posters who run the gamut on FOFC.

You can answer this yourself, especially as in my last reply to you I pointed out that my initial problem lay in your first few lines, not your last.

Will she care to tell the rest of the population then? Because I don't know why we went into Iraq. I have my theories, but I don't know. Do you know? I bet if I ask you and ten other people, I will get 11 answers. It's obvious that WMD's were used to sell the war. But for what reason did it need to be sold?

It's sad state of affairs in this country when passive protesting is irrational, warranting of professional help, and subject to being called an 'attention whore'.

What changed? Nothing. The change is a fabrication by the Conservative slime machine:
hxxp://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

I assume now that you no longer "feel she's using the media circus around this to make a political statement that cheapens her son's sacrifice".

flere-imsaho

You wax very poetically about your brothers great sacrifice. My family also has an immediate family member in Iraq at the moment "A brother, A son ". His stance and the stance of this family is that its a job worth doing. Not once in all of your postings have you mentioned the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people of Iraq murdered before this war started. Not to mention all the people tortured daily. Nor have you mentioned the Torture chambers and meat grinders found in the prision systems. Would you still believe it is a wasted effort if you had a loved one incarcerated in one of those prisions under the former ruler? For nothing more then a traffic violation? Or how about if you had a loved one that was khurdish and the government was trying to exterminate them from existance? Do the women, children and grandparents of other countries mean so little to you simply because they cannot claim our AMAZING country as their homeland? If not us...then who else? I did not need WMD's to justify this war. Simple compassion for humane lives is all. I think 11 years of warnings and comprimises was way to much. If I have any disagreement at all its with not having done this when the first Bush was in office. He should have stood his ground. I am proud of the men and women overseas serving their countries...not just the americans but ALL of the soldiers and workers over there. I stand in AWE of them and all the hard work they do. I am sure you love your brother....try loving someone elses.

Now c'mon, they were just fraternity pranks! A couple of bad apples in Saddam's old regime!

But seriously, we may have gotten rid of Saddam, but it is looking increasingly likely that we will leave a civil war in our wake, along with the tens of thousands already dead. Not really a good trade.

On the whole, I feel very sorry for Cindy Sheehan, but I think once you get a public relations firm involved, you're no longer "passively protesting".

Vacaville is less than 20 miles from where I live, and Sheehan has been covered on many occasions both on TV and in the local newspapers here since her son was killed. I think it's safe to say that I knew of her and her position on the war long before most of you ever heard of her. Whatever you may think of what she is doing, she has consistently been against the war all along. Any suggestion that her position has changed is a lie.

MrBigglesworth,

Well Duh
Thats why we shouldnt pull out prematurely. . besides premature withdrawl is ALWAYS a bad idea...just ask your wife...

A job worth doing is worth seeing finished. No there will never be a complete end to terrorism, I realise this. But turning the other cheek while atrocites are committed is not an answer.
Just ask the Jews that were tortured by Hitler in those death camps, do you think any of them wish America had stayed un-involved?

Try doing a search. I've already answered all of your points.

Passive as opposed to the violent and/or obstructionist tactics of groups such as Operation Rescue.