Mom holds vigil near Bush ranch

Remove all ads!

The mom of fallen soldier in Iraq has started a vigil outside Bush's ranch in Texas. Apparently, she wanted to talk to Bush about it, but since she was not able to reach him, she decided to camp near the road leading to his ranch till he sees her.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002425288_mom07.html

 

I suspect he is being briefed on how to 'handle' her, as he is obviously too cowardly to communicate on his own.

 

Bush met with her back in June of '04 and her story was a little different then:

Bush, Sheehans share moments

Now suddenly she wants more face time with President? That is a little suspicios to say the least.

 

Sounds like the anti-war nuts are using her.

 

Right, she met with the president once. She might have changed her mind since, though.

Regardless of how justified her wish to talk to the president is, I think this is a tough one for Bush to handle. After all, you do not want to appear to be callous toward people who lost family members in Iraq. On the other hand, I am not sure if he can make himself available to each mother who lost a son there.

Also interesting to note is that this story has not yet appeared in the big papers (New York Times, or Wash. Post, not to mention the conservative ones). However, it has generated a lot of traffic on liberal blogs, as well as some conservative ones. I think we can expect this to appear in the mainstream media soon (especially if Cindy Sheehan will get arrested for tresspassing, or endangering the president).

 

Yes, people who are anti-war are certainly "nuts." Imagine peace.

But, I'm really glad that someone pointed out something that people are very capable of: the ability, upon refelction and experience, to change their minds and see a different perspective. Here's a mother who just lost her son. She meets with George II, and she's very emotional; her feelings have not even had the time to sort themselves through any of the normal processes which we define as grief.

First, she acts and speaks from emotion, as a part of the grieving process; then she has a chance to view what's happened to her son and her family upon rational reflection, and she sees something completely different - and it changes her opinion. And now she wants some hard answers. All the typical platitudes and slogans used by the "primetime" and "sunshine patriots" don't mean a whole lot when she is standing at her son's graveside.

To honor them, many presidents in the past have used the phrase - "mothers who have made the ulitmate sacrifice for their country, by giving their sons for its freedom."

Yes, they are a completely different breed of patriots from those whom Thomas Paine first described as the "sunshine patriots." How we owe them.

[ August 10, 2005, 17:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

You could be right Chandos.

Or it could be that some of the Deaniac's operatives got to her.

Either way, her actions are not those of a reasonable, rational person, so I think she might still be working through those emotions.

 

The problem is, her account of her first meeting with the president does not match what she's saying today. So I guess that means that she has problems with her memory.

 

That could be. But the real question is if whether or not George II owes her 10 minutes of his time. I think he does, and it would be very gracious of him to meet with her.

 

He already gave her that. By this new standard you want to set any person who ever lost a child in war would be entitled to demand an audience with the President, time and time again. This isn't a reasonable expectation.

 

This is all I need to know in determining if the woman was thinking clearly at the time. How, by Bush being a "man of faith" of any consequence or condolence to someone who has lost their son? Bush is always one to strut the fact that he is Christian, and views that he has the moral high ground on so many issues that he does not. I think the problem is that Bush certainly believes (and he's certainly not alone) that because of his Christian convictions he is a better person than people who lack these Christian convictions. And I really don't think that's necessarily true.

 

I personally don't see why Bush would have any obligation to give time for this woman. I do however think that this might be a good public relations trick if he actually would succeed in offering her some comforting words. There is of course the possible chance of the woman lashing out at him and accusing him for killing her child or something like that which would hardly be that good.

 

He may find the time to squeeze her in between the 6th and 7th holes of his golf game...

 

Dubious source, but Drudge is reporting that some of the Sheehan family has released the following statement:

Drudge

If it is true, it definitely puts a dent in Mom's credibility.

[ August 12, 2005, 17:26: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Come on. How can this put a dent in Cindy's credibility? It was her child, for God's sake. Are you saying that whatever bonds are created between family relatives (like grandparents or aunt and nephew) compares with the bond between mother and child ? You are way off-bas e here.

Anyhow, if this is true, I think is disgraceful (from the part of the family). Losing a child is a traumatic experience. Even if the parent goes overboard with grief, the family should support him/her.

 

What if, as they say (allegedly), it isn't about her grief, but about her getting attention? You are assuming that this is all about a mother's love of her child, but that isn't necessarily the case.

 

But how can you tell? I would not presume to know what passes through the mind of a mother who lost her child.

You might say that this is war, and things like this happen. Where would we be if every dead soldier's mother would behave like this? There is a point to this; however, in my opinion this just goes to show that the responsible people have to be very careful when declaring war. If your own citizens are not behind you 100%, and there is reason to think that the war is unjust, well...

Actually, I think it is more important to convince people that the war is fought for the right reasons. Then, even if not all agree at the begining with declaring the war, their support can be won later. On the other hand, if there is a perception that the war was unnecessary, you lose what support you start with to begin.

Of course, this holds for a democracy, where you cannot simply put the dissenters in jail (although you can certainly accuse them of being traitors and supporting the enemy)

 

How can I tell? How about we look at her actions and her family's reactions. She was all happy after she met the President a year ago, now she is acting like a loon in front of the President's ranch, and the fact that there are alleged allegations from the family that she is pulling a publicity stunt, which is exactly what her behavior seems to demonstrate.

As far as your theory about going to war, you will never have 100% support in a diverse nation like the US, no matter how just the action. There were many Americans who never supported our actions in WWII (how many allegations are there that Roosevelt only got us in the war to pull us out of the Great Depression?), and that is probably the most well backed war in our history. The fact is that the dissent was completely muted by the outcry; so to say that you should have 100% backing before going to war is ridiculous.

Now, I will agree with you that if a war is not just, support will wane. In hindsight, we really didn't need to invade Iraq, but hindsight is 20/20, and except for some dubious evidence to the contrary, we were justified to remove Saddam's regime based upon the information available at the time, and in fact the action is still justifiable to this day.

 

I don't how I would react if one of my children were killed. It would be tough. Perhaps the first several months or year in shock, then anger (maybe the anger would be sooner). Who would I strike out against though, that's the question.

The obvious choices are the people that pulled the trigger, or the people that sent the boy there. She has chosen the people that sent her boy away.

I'm certainly not going to fault her, or question her motives. I never want to be in her place. But I also don't think Bush is required to address any of her concerns.

She can protest and Bush should discreetly keep away from her avoiding confrontation.

 

Well, looks like the protesters grew into quite a crowd. There are more than 100 of them, now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1032879

I like their description of how Bush, in a "black Suburban with tinted windows" passes by the protesters on his way to a meeting with donors who "have contributed at least $25,000 to the RNC". Also, the fundraiser "was expected to raise at least $2 million for the Republican National Committee"