Why Won't Bush See Her?
- Thread starter stinkyboy
- Start date
Yeah. Having to deal personally with the results of his actions rather than a number on a balance sheet, that might shake things up. It's easy to disregard casualties when they are numbers, it's a lot harder when they have faces, and when they are your friends ... it can just about push you over the edge.H8R said:
clancy98 said:
Wheaties?
Well ,she talked to him last year, and was happy about it.
If this is actually true:
----------------------------------------------------
PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH
Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET
The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!
Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."
CINDY 2004
THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 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."
CINDY 2005
Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.
She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"
In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.
"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...
If this is actually true:
----------------------------------------------------
PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH
Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET
The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!
Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."
CINDY 2004
THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 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."
CINDY 2005
Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.
She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"
In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.
"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...
man! that sucks! i can't believe bush made her son join the military!
....oh wait, he VOLUNTEERED. get over it lady.
regardless of your take on the war, every person in the military signs their own contract and fully understands what may happen. perhaps it was her fault for not telling her son that he may have to fight in an unpopular war and die. Honor the kid, but not by whining about his death.
somebody please put a "kick me" sign on her back.
....oh wait, he VOLUNTEERED. get over it lady.
regardless of your take on the war, every person in the military signs their own contract and fully understands what may happen. perhaps it was her fault for not telling her son that he may have to fight in an unpopular war and die. Honor the kid, but not by whining about his death.
somebody please put a "kick me" sign on her back.
Does someone get to say that to your wife and kid(s) when you die in the line of duty?manimal said:
I understand your point but........do you have to be so mustache sportin' aviator wearing coppy about it?
clancy98 said:see, told ya manzi, not his fault.
In the military there is a axiom. "You can delegate authority, not responsibility"
You are responsible for and to everyone under your command. You can grant them the Authority to do something, but you are always responsible for what is done. When you are Commander in Chief, you are responsible for everyone in the military, and everything they did.
No, GW didn't shot this guy. Yes, he is responsible for his death. He gave the orders, he commands the Military.
All very valid points of course. But telling a grieving spouse to suck it up just sounds so........I don't know......bushy with the camera turned off.H8R said:
So even if he is right, it is his tone that is offensive.....kidwoo said:
So other than aggreeing with him....just ask him to say it "nicer."
Bush didn't shoot him....so asking him why he killed her son is irresponsible. She is agnry at the wrong man/woman. Sadly she has reason to be angry.
Tone mostly but I also agree with anyone who makes the case that our great leader is misusing our military. I think it's great that we're hearing about recruitment problems, concurrently cutting benefits for veterans and sending nat guard personnel who get nowhere near the benefits of the regular military. I'm down with H8Rs comment because he raises some valid points about our great monkey and his responsibilty to those who are dying right now due to his war profiteering BS. So although the woman's tone changes pretty dramatically between interviews, she has a right to hold bush responsible........since his reasons are questionable and wars lose lives, not just property/money/stock value etc. Yeah he signed up but his commander in chief failed him in his widows view. I happen to think she's right.RhinofromWA said:So even if he is right, it is his tone that is offensive.....
So other than aggreeing with him....just ask him to say it "nicer."
Bush didn't shoot him....so asking him why he killed her son is irresponsible. She is agnry at the wrong man/woman. Sadly she has reason to be angry.
Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle......stinkyboy said:
Bush still didn't kill the soldier. I can sense your anger but your(also the mothers) accusation is CRAP. I could just as well blame you it would have as much to do with it.
Your views on the war and personal feelings slant your acceptance of how Pres Bush is attacked(verbally)kidwoo said:
Even though he is not responsible.....it is OK because of other reasons. Using an erroneous poster child as a mother and her fallen soldier son is OK as it hits who you want to where it hurts even if it is false.
How about blaming the combatant who fired the shot? Apperantly he gets a full pardone.
Good to see we are so objective.
Explain.RhinofromWA said:
I know the mom is being an idiot, she won't see him. Ever.
She knew what her son was getting into. You can't join the Army and expect not to die.
Still - how is Bush NOT responsible for putting her son in an idiotic war? She has a right to be angry, because her son died for a lie.
Several layers of lies, indeed.
I agree that this woman is being dumb with her little campaign, but it's her right to do it if she wants.
It is indisputably George Bush's responsibility that her son is dead at the end of the day, though. This war was unneccassary, based on a personal agenda, and persued with insufficient planning and negligence. If it was not for GW there would have been no war.
I agree that this woman is being dumb with her little campaign, but it's her right to do it if she wants.
It is indisputably George Bush's responsibility that her son is dead at the end of the day, though. This war was unneccassary, based on a personal agenda, and persued with insufficient planning and negligence. If it was not for GW there would have been no war.
lets try an analogy:
say we're putting a DH race and it's a freshly cut course that no one has ridden yet. i've spent all my life dreaming about joining this DH cult and train daily for a race. Now, this race is different. The race promoter tells all the contestants that it is a no-practice course, meaning: no one will see the course before the race. He tells us that the course has a few dangerous spots that could lead to serious injury and only those who REALLY WANT TO DO IT and SIGN A CONTRACT/WAIVER will be allowed to race.
I go and dicuss this particular decision with my wife/family and we decide that it's really what I WANT TO DO and i UNDERSTAND THE RISK.
So here comes my race run......smooth sailing for a while, then a nasty rock garden. Then, just after a fast sweeper is a huge gap jump. I miss a pedal stroke and don't get the speed required to clear it. I case hard, go OTB and break my collarbone.
now....should my wife/family go and protest the promoter of the race because i busted my collarbone.....even after he told me it was a dangerous course?
(i know, kind of a weird analogy but it serves a purpose)
say we're putting a DH race and it's a freshly cut course that no one has ridden yet. i've spent all my life dreaming about joining this DH cult and train daily for a race. Now, this race is different. The race promoter tells all the contestants that it is a no-practice course, meaning: no one will see the course before the race. He tells us that the course has a few dangerous spots that could lead to serious injury and only those who REALLY WANT TO DO IT and SIGN A CONTRACT/WAIVER will be allowed to race.
I go and dicuss this particular decision with my wife/family and we decide that it's really what I WANT TO DO and i UNDERSTAND THE RISK.
So here comes my race run......smooth sailing for a while, then a nasty rock garden. Then, just after a fast sweeper is a huge gap jump. I miss a pedal stroke and don't get the speed required to clear it. I case hard, go OTB and break my collarbone.
now....should my wife/family go and protest the promoter of the race because i busted my collarbone.....even after he told me it was a dangerous course?
(i know, kind of a weird analogy but it serves a purpose)
Your analogy fails because DH racing is a leisure activity. However I understand where you are coming from, that the army is dangerous and everyone should be well aware of the risk of dying as a soldier. I agree. However, as has been pointed out, GW is Commander-In-Chief, he is ultimatly responsible for the deployment and command of the US Military. He sent the troops to an unneccassary, counterproductive war. As such the American and Iraqi deaths were avoidable and responsibility has to fall on the shoulders of the instigator of the war. The armed forces are not a toy, as I'm sure you'd agree.
I can see how you can logically you can rubbish this woman's claims if you agree the war was justified and necassary. In that case it is the duty of the soldier to fight and maybe die protecting the interests of his country.
That's what it comes down to in the end:
Do you believe the American instigated invasion of Iraq was justified and neccassary, or do you believe Bush took us all to war based on lies and a personal agenda?
I can see how you can logically you can rubbish this woman's claims if you agree the war was justified and necassary. In that case it is the duty of the soldier to fight and maybe die protecting the interests of his country.
That's what it comes down to in the end:
Do you believe the American instigated invasion of Iraq was justified and neccassary, or do you believe Bush took us all to war based on lies and a personal agenda?
The anaolgy doesn't work....manimal said:
Try this.
You join a DH team. Your wife and you know the assumed risk of racing on this team.
Your team leader has the team race on a VERY irresponsible course.
HUGE 50' drops and boulders, barb wire instead of course tape, strewn w/ booby traps and other teams get to throw things at you as you go by.
You have to race the course way more times than thought too. The team won't supply enough body armor for everyone, and you have to salvage parts for your bike.
Win or lose, you will get very little for your efforts, but the team captain and his buddies will get a huge chunk of the purse no matter if your team wins or not.
You end up breaking your neck after a zealous opponent throws a pump in your spokes.
Now - should your wife be pissed at the team captain?
Which is why the army shows realistic recruiting commericials of what life in the military is like, right?manimal said:
(All the ones I've seen show no violence, no shooting, no death, no wounds, no bull**** from idiot commanders, no boredom...nothing but fun and some golf occasionally. Oh, and if you're a sniper you may have to go hungry for the chance to shoot a raghead in the face.)
Yes....full pardon.RhinofromWA said:How about blaming the combatant who fired the shot? Apperantly he gets a full pardone.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
I hate freedom and speak french too.
Hannity has taught you well.
Incidently I hold the shooter and the monkey in equally high regards.......worthy of the same respect I grant to the dogsh!t I scrape off of my shoes.RhinofromWA said:
I'll say this again, as a military veteran.
Fact.
"You can delegate authority, not responsibility" This is a basic principle of the military command structure. It's why a General can be demoted because a pfc abused a prisoner. Ask ex-General Karpinski.
Fact.
George Bush is responsible. No Ifs, ands, or buts. He campaigned for the job, he got the job, he sent the troops to battle, he was in charge.
Opinion:
Why won't GW see her?, here's some speculation:
It serves no political purpose. There will be no cheerful photo op, with a nice sound bite for the evening news. It will be not be pretty. A crying mother screaming "you killed my son you bastard!", makeup and news cameras running.
Another reason, As Commander in Chief he probably feels he needs a element of detachment. It's a lot harder sending people to die when you know them. If you stop to think about the cost it makes you hesitate, and to your enemies it may make you look weak. If you lead a military at some point you have to put the mission ahead of the individual.
Some less flattering possible reasons: Guilt. It's hard to sleep at night when you see the faces of people who died. Denial, Maybe he doesn't believe he's responsible, even though he's the Commander in Chief.
Editorial:
On paper, on a macro level democracy in Iraq sounds like a good idea, but the devil is in the details. People die, Iraqi and American. In Physics every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, in politics the same is generally true. By invading Iraq, we've created a reaction, more terrorists, more resentment in the middle east, less trust. Will it be worth it 20 years from now? We'll find out.
Fact.
"You can delegate authority, not responsibility" This is a basic principle of the military command structure. It's why a General can be demoted because a pfc abused a prisoner. Ask ex-General Karpinski.
Fact.
George Bush is responsible. No Ifs, ands, or buts. He campaigned for the job, he got the job, he sent the troops to battle, he was in charge.
Opinion:
Why won't GW see her?, here's some speculation:
It serves no political purpose. There will be no cheerful photo op, with a nice sound bite for the evening news. It will be not be pretty. A crying mother screaming "you killed my son you bastard!", makeup and news cameras running.
Another reason, As Commander in Chief he probably feels he needs a element of detachment. It's a lot harder sending people to die when you know them. If you stop to think about the cost it makes you hesitate, and to your enemies it may make you look weak. If you lead a military at some point you have to put the mission ahead of the individual.
Some less flattering possible reasons: Guilt. It's hard to sleep at night when you see the faces of people who died. Denial, Maybe he doesn't believe he's responsible, even though he's the Commander in Chief.
Editorial:
On paper, on a macro level democracy in Iraq sounds like a good idea, but the devil is in the details. People die, Iraqi and American. In Physics every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, in politics the same is generally true. By invading Iraq, we've created a reaction, more terrorists, more resentment in the middle east, less trust. Will it be worth it 20 years from now? We'll find out.
Yes.Changleen said:
RhinofromWA said:How about blaming the combatant who fired the shot? Apperantly he gets a full pardone.
The thread isn't about the mother trying to see an insurgent in Iraq. Yes, whoever shot or blew him up is responsible. So is the President who lied to congress, forged intelligence reports, and as Commander in Chief sent her son to Iraq. Otherwise her son never would have been there.
In the simplist terms, a moment in time is a combination of and the result of the moments before it. The mother is responsible for not giving her son more options in life, the son is responsible for signing up, the President who invaded Iraq is responsible, as is the Congress who gave him authorization. The insurgent that killed him is responsible. We the people even bear some responsibility for letting ourselves get sold down the river into this war.
Picking one person to blame doesn't absolve everyone else. We are all responsible.
This thread is about why Bush won't see a woman who's son he commanded to invade another country and was killed in the process.
I love how the frother response to this is "suck it up you whiny bitch". Such compassion.
Hey, if he wanted compassion from this president, God should have made him a stem cell, not an actual human being...valve bouncer said:
I heard a new Republican slogan was going to be: "Life: Once it makes out of a vagina, we don't give a ****." You can almost picture N8 jerking off to that, can't you?
Tee hee. Love the fetus, hate the child, it's the republican way.Silver said:
You selling t-shirts?
Ahahahahaa!manimal said:
Sorry mate, I know you were trying to be serious and you gave it a good crack. But seriously that was just hilarious!!!
How some one can compare an hypothetical illogical DH race to an invasion who's premise changes to suit the current situation is completely beyond me. There's so much more to this than "He joined up, it's his problem". The issue is should soldiers die for something that IS NOT in the national interest?
BTW, I ride DH and am a soldier.
I know this woman is being a little irrational (she's a mum who lost a child, give her a bit of a break eh?) but the question still remains, should soldiers be used for means/ends that may be considered unethical and that DEFINATELY has no clearly defined reason.
I just LOOOOOVE the new one. al Zawahiri says it's a central battle ground, Bush says "See! See! I told is was part of the war on terror!".
Dead set hilarious! I can't blame the woman for asking questions, I'll give her that much. She should centre her questions on WHAT her son died for, not why he did. I'm not sure if anyone knows the ACTUAL reason for the war YET!
Send that in to T-Shirt hell. That's a winner for sure.kidwoo said:
Then if that is what its about, then that has an easy answer.Reactor said:
He doesn't have to. Its not in the job description nor should it be. The fact that she got to meet with him once already is more than the vast majority of the parents of the others killed already in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did Reagan meet with all the parents of dead from Grenada, Bush Sr. from Panama or the Gulf part one, Clinton from Somalia? Or the hundreds of soliders that have died all over the place in training accidents, terrorists attacks and all the others that end up dead lord knows where doing lord knows what. In each case the answer is no. On the most basic level it simply isn't practical.
She probably got a bag full of letters from everyone from his direct commander all the way thru his chain of command including the president. She got her flag and her little "On behalf of a greatful nation....." just like the others.
The FACT of the matter is that regardless of her motivation (which is questionable in my opinion) there is NOTHING that he or anyone can say that is going to adequately explain why her son is dead. NOTHING. And in her case where she obviously had an axe to grind with Bush prior to her son getting killed, what's the point?
http://www.thereporter.com/republished
Here is the reprint of the article from last year. I'm going to cut and paste the whole thing because of the link. It doesn't look permanent.
I added the bold. Which seems in conflict with what she is saying about that meeting now.
Here is the reprint of the article from last year. I'm going to cut and paste the whole thing because of the link. It doesn't look permanent.
I added the bold. Which seems in conflict with what she is saying about that meeting now.