Why is this question so hard to answer?:

"I said I want the president to explain what was the noble cause that my son died in, because that's what he said the other day when those 14 marines were killed. He said their families can rest assured that their sons and daughters died for a noble cause. And I said, 'What is that noble cause?'"

-- Cindy Sheehan

A soldier’s #1 job is to stay alive. If you die, you can’t accomplish the mission, and you weaken your team and put your buddies in danger.

Obviously Sheehan’s son, I forget his name at the moment, didn’t die on purpose, and he may well have have had no control over the circumstances that let to his death.

BUT.

In war, there are no excuses. You find a way to stay alive, whatever it takes — if you’re a good soldier. Sheehan’s son didn’t do that. He paid the price. but he als failed the mission and let down his buddies.

As a soldier, he was a failure. He was brave (maybe), but he was also incompetent.

So, really, how much exactly are we supposed to grieve over this guy? Isn’t a certain amount of disapproval in order for the guy — and by extension his mom, for making such a fuss over a person who was, in the last analysis, by definition a loser?

So shouldn’t Mrs. Sheenhan be showing a little more shame about the situation and maybe not wanting to get her son and his shortcoming splashed all over the media?

How easy it is to be an armchair quarterback and to pontificate and judge others.

Must be looking for a call from the "Fair and Balanced" folks

If this was intened as an arguement against this protest, then your passing along of a smear now against the soldier himself is even MORE disgusting than the smear of his mother. I guess the right has no shame at all? They now support the war but hate the troops and their families? And this assertion would then make all 1840 soldiers killed "incompetent" I guess, huh? What's up with that? This is so vile, I can't even believe anyone would have the stomach to say this -- what a sick thing to do.

Again, what about the answer to a grieving mothers simple question which nobody on this board is even attempting to answer ---

What is the noble cause over 1800 soldiers have died for?

If that question cannot be answered, how in the world can anyone support this war? Since when should we go to war for anything less than a "noble cause"?

I just can't beleive anyone who claims to be patriotic and support the war will smear soldiers who died in that war. This makes me ill.


-- Modified on 8/14/2005 12:18:54 PM

"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say "But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides.

I guess there is no noble cause, eh?

Here's a hint. It begins with "Hali" and ends with "burton". Want the truth? Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money.

That's why it's hard to answer.

felt was worth dying for. In his mind, he died defending his country and his fellow soldiers.

This is what he did as a man of free will.
This is what he believed.

This man died for a noble cause and that will be true no matter what all you Bush Haters, including his mom, think.

should just stay dead and not bother me while I am on vacation. It's a tough job being president and I have my own life to lead. As I said before, if he was a good soldier, he wouln't have been killed anyway.

...he did it because it he had to and for his buddies.

That makes HIM noble but not the war my friend.

He died for a cause Dumbya felt was worth dying for.  I would bet anything he wasn't jumping up and down, raising his hand and yelling, "SEND ME TO IRAQNAM!!!  SEND ME TO IRAQNAM!!!"

Yes, he chose to join the military and knew of the potential risks involved with that decision.  But there's a big difference between dying for a truly noble cause (think the 9/11 firefighters and police officers), and a bogus war perpetuated by lies, deceit and the pursuit of oil.

your talent for talking with the dead and sharing their feelings sure is handy. Now what about Marilyn Monroe?

-- Modified on 8/15/2005 9:29:11 PM

Enoughs enough. Marching out grieving mothers to make a point is beyond morbid. What's next, pro-war mothers v. anti-war mother Roller Ball? Orphan T-ball?

in Vietnam on their posterboy Kennedy? Or LBJ for that matter.

It's Nixon the Pub that gets most of the bad press when in fact it was these 2 DEMOCRATS that jacked us up there.

LBJ didn't run for reelection because of Viet Nam. I don't see a monument for him in Washington so WTF are you talking about? Kennedy did not live long enough to get heat for it. And Nixon gets blamed for lying about his secret non-existant plan for victory and for Cambodia. You really don't know much, do you?

and Kennedy died young.

So that excuses them for starting a war that killed 57,000 men?

LOL!!!

your own statements. Who said anything about excuses? Last I looked LBJ is blamed for the lies and the escalation of the Viet Nam War. He is not a revered president and I don't hear too many candidates saying that they are going to be the next LBJ. He paid a price in that he did not run for reelection because of it. Could you please show me which lib or Dem is deflecting criticism of LBJ for that mess? I would be very interested in reading it.
The first U.S. troops were sent by Eisenhower, not JFK, so if you want ultimate blame, by your standards you should go there. When JFK died there were 16,000 U.S. troops there as advisers and about 100 casualties. Viet Nam did not become a clusterfuck until after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. Who knows what JFK would have done had he lived.