home

A Question For the President

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:35:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Cindy Sheehan has a question for President Bush: "Why did my son die?"

Her son, Casey, 24, was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, on April 4, 2004. He was an Army specialist, a Humvee mechanic.

Cindy is in Crawford, as close as she can get to the vacationing president. She planned to camp out until Bush answers her question, but she's having trouble getting his attention. The local police have played games with Cindy and the protestors who accompany her, preventing her from getting closer than four or five miles from the president's ranch.

Cindy decided the president needed to be held accountable after she heard him say that the troops have died for a worthy cause that must be seen to its end.

I don't want him to use my son's name or my family name to justify any more killing," she said.

Sheehan said Bush administration officials "don't have a mission and they don't even ever plan on completing it." She said she fears that the United States plans to keep a U.S. military presence in Iraq indefinitely.

< Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race | Hiroshima >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Question For the President | 34 comments (34 topical)
    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#1)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    What a coward Bush and this Republican bunch truly are. In the documentary, The Fog of War, there are several examples of Robert McNamara meeting with war protesters. Bush invades a country for no good reason. He then can't find the time to attend the funerals of any of the soldiers who died as a result of his decision. Now he refuses to meet the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. Whats he so afraid of? What a coward.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#2)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    For what did he die? For the Republican Party. Period.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#3)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    That is sad, but that is what happens when people follow Rats like bush and business, bin Laden is a setup and people have walked into the lies of a free Nation and just war. Bush needs prison along with most of the government of rats. ask why people didn't see it for what it is, a business deal for the world oligarchies who plan on selling us all into death and slavery. where is bin laden? G.W.Bush's real name is treason. Iraq KIA 1827 American Wounded ( official)13,559 some say as high as 42,500. by the way most of you also don't know that in 2 years we have had over 30,000 people come here from iraq on the bush program, most have never had a background check.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#4)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    What a coward Bush and this Republican bunch truly are. In the documentary, The Fog of War, there are several examples of Robert McNamara meeting with war protesters.
    9/11 changed everything. You can be a cowboy who's afraid of horses, and you can be an infallible leader appointed by God and not have the stones to defend your actions in a way that involves saying more than "I'm a war president and they hate our freedoms." Somebody please save us.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    For what did he die? For the Republican Party. Period.
    More precisely, he died for the people who give money to the Republican Party.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    "Mrs. Sheehan is protesting against the WRONG guy. Chimpy is merely the salesman here, doesn't anyone get that?" He's the Commandeer-in-Chief, pole. Protesting in front of Lockheed is not a bad idea in some sense, but it has no direct connection to a solution. The only solution is POLITICAL. Ergo, protest the politicians. You overgeneralize about 'politicians,' and then acuse this Gold Star Mother of not having a clue. Two errors in as many words.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    "Protesting in front of Lockheed is not a bad idea in some sense, but it has no direct connection to a solution." wrong. totally wrong. with corporations basically running our country now they are extremely sensitive to negative PR simply because they know damn well it impacts their profit margin. the "Super Size" me film about crappy McDonald's food is a prime example. within weeks of this film's release McDonald's stopped offering the huge portions of french fries, started offering fruit items, etc. Jesse Jackson has also clearly demonstrated the power of the boycott against U.S. corporations. but STILL we don't get it and use the ONLY power we have. your notion here that a political solution to Iraq is even remotely feasible indicates some major naivete on your part. "he's the commander-in-chief".. REALLY? c'mon dude, you have to be kidding me! CHIMPY is in no way, shape or form any sort of "president". he's president in name ONLY, thus he's commander in chief in name only. I mean no disrespect to our Gold Star families. I am simply facing REALITY here and suggesting the most direct and feasible solution. it's NOT in the political arena.. there's only ONE WAY to bring the giant down.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#9)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    superpole writes:
    it's NOT in the political arena.. there's only ONE WAY to bring the giant down.
    And your plan is? BTW - Whether you like it, or whether the grieving mother understands it, we are at war.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Its not a war, you can't fight a war against small groups of people scattered all over the globe. Your link shows the consequences of terrorism,which are as ugly as a war but that doesn't make it a war. The reason bush uses the phrase is that it covers over many of his real intentions, eg setting up a military foothole in Iraq since the US had to leave SA

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Superpole, the mistake you're making in equating "SuperSize Me" with potential protests of Lockheed is that there's a very easy to make connection between the point of protest and the company in the case of the former. Guy eats at McDonald's. Guy gets sick. McDonald's food bad. If, say, Lockheed itself was fighting the war then your suggestion would be more reasonable. The reason these protests work (when they do) is that the media gets involved and makes the connection for the media consumer. You can't expect the media to make the jump you're asking them to, and you certainly can't expect them to say that the government is controlled by giant corporations. And before you bring up "The Corporation," or anything like that, know that I'm talking about the MSM. All the rest of that stuff is preaching to the choir. Corporations start getting antsy when CNN starts giving them negative press. They couldn't give two sh**s about a bad review in In These Times. It IS about politics, and that, really, along with protest which will get picked up by MSM, is our only power.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#12)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    SD - It looks like a war to me. And no, you can't fight it as a totally convential war. But it can be fought.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#13)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    PPJ, re:"Whether you like it, or whether the grieving mother understands it, we are at war." Whether we are in a "war against terrorism" or a "global struggle against violent extremism" or whatever this week's new catchphrase is, this has nothing to do with why he doesn't want to meet a grieving mother who has lost her son in Iraq. Why doesn't Bush meet with the widows and parents of those who have lost their lives in Iraq? Why doesn't he attend the funeral of those servicemen who have died in Iraq? Unlike the Johnson administration during the Vietnam war, the Bush administration tries to do everything they can to isolate themselves from their critics. They avoid public events that might cause them political embarassment. What they forget is that meeting with a widow or a mother of a soldier who died fighting in a war you started isn't about politics. Its about doing whats right.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    SD - It looks like a war to me.
    Of course it does to you. If you said anything else how could you defend Bush?
    And no, you can't fight it as a totally convential war. But it can be fought.
    Yes by invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. Like I said its very easy to understand. If you don't call it a war how can you even start to try and justify an invasion. So its all BS meant to cover up Bush and his neocon handlers and their real reasons for their actions. Call it a war allows Bush to send troops to Paraquay, Columbia, Central Asia and any where else "national interests" read oil are at stake.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    John Horse - My question would be why should he? I am sad for the mother. She is devastated. But Bush meeting with her would only provide publicity for the anti-war minority and would not satisfy her. Beyond that, and speaking bluntly, she has no particular right to expect a meeting with the President. And the Johnson’s administration meeting with the war protestors was as dumb as dirt. SD – Re Iraq and why we invaded.
    Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn raise, with good reason, the question of why Saddam gave haven to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the men who in 1993 helped make the bomb that ripped through the parking garage of the World Trade Center. They detail a contact between Iraqi intelligence and several of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia, the year before al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers.
    Just happened to be having lunch there?
    Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--
    But missed it, or more likely ignored it, the media did. And well said, here. And artfully coordinated and summarized by Deanesmay.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#16)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    PPJ, Why should Bush meet with the mother whose son was killed in Iraq? Why should he meet with the widows or children of soldiers killed in Iraq? Why should he attend the funerals of our soldiers killed in Iraq? Maybe, because as you point out, the loved ones left behind are devastated and that would be a decent thing to do. After all, he does bear some responsibility for sending their loved ones to Iraq. However, Republicans don't think like that, do they? Whats important is that its just not smart politics.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    PPJ - Stop making a fool of yourself. Probably too late for that. WE all know there were no WMDs Bush knew there weren'T any WMDs and this has been a glorious pack of lies. We've been through this tens of times, the fact that you still either pretend or believe this tripe shows you for the partisan hack we all know you are. The sheep will believe that der leader can do no wrong. PPJ and his ilk are the foundation upon which fascist states are built. But I think more and more of the sheep are starting to wake up.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Posted by Superpole: "wrong. totally wrong. with corporations basically running our country now they are extremely sensitive to negative PR simply because they know damn well it impacts their profit margin." It does not. WHY would they be 'extremely sensitive' when they RUN THE GOVERNMENT? They have great impunity, because the regulation of their activities is at an all time low. "the "Super Size" me film about crappy McDonald's food is a prime example." McDonald's is a consumer restaurant. It is not a multinational arms manufacturer. "your notion here that a political solution to Iraq is even remotely feasible indicates some major naivete on your part." It's called American democracy, and your slander is based on YOUR naivete, not mine. I've been a protester for 38 years. You have your theories, but I've seen it in ACTION. "he's the commander-in-chief".. REALLY? c'mon dude, you have to be kidding me!" Dude? He's the ComandEEr in Chief is what I wrote. It's a joke, son. "CHIMPY is in no way, shape or form any sort of "president". he's president in name ONLY, thus he's commander in chief in name only." Well, that is utterly false. He is the LEGAL president of the US, at least until he isn't. He is vulnerable to the laws, if there is even a fragment of justice available. "I mean no disrespect to our Gold Star families. I am simply facing REALITY here and suggesting the most direct and feasible solution." No, you're coming late to the party with a lot of disrespect for people who have lost far more than you. "it's NOT in the political arena.. there's only ONE WAY to bring the giant down." Hilarious. Political solutions are the ONLY method of dealing with a coup that does not involve massive civilian bloodshed domestically. Plenty of people have protested Lockheed. If that is your big idea, then you have a lot more thinking to do.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    John H - You know, as I do, that the only thing that would come out of such public meetings would be negative press and much hand wringing, which would play directly into the hands of the terrorists as its overstated impact would impact the politicans in DC. The President is CINC, not chief consoler. That is the job of friends, family and religious leaders. SD writes:
    We've been through this tens of times,
    Yes, and you have never answered the direct information contained in the links. Which means you are either lazy or unable to, or both. Come on SD, you flap your lips and toss off overhead insults. Tell us that: about this statement
    from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
    is wrong Show us, oh great one. Show us. Tell us Chairman Kean was kidding us. Tell us the report didn't say that. Come on Mr. I Know It All. Spread your vast knowledge around. Tell us the King of Jordan was lying when he said
    One month ago, Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. "We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn't respond."
    Tell us that Rolf Ekeus was lying when he said that Saddam had offerred him a $2,000,000 bribe.
    Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction. Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy. Mr Ekeus told Reuters news agency
    Come on, SD. Tell us that the attempted bribe was because Iraq had no WMD's. Nothing to hide. Nope. Nothing. Sure. Ab so lute ly. And of course the Clinton Administration didn't know what they were doing when theyissued an idictment that said...
    The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
    Tell us oh great sooth sayer. Tell us how wrong the JD was, heck they were probably just shilling for the Bush JD department which they knew would be there in two years. Yeah. No doubt.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#20)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    PPj finding a couple of quotes or paid off flunkies does not invalidate the ton of evidence that has been put forth. I have put out tons of links which you have ignored, which you would ignore again. To actually debate this again at this point in time would drag me down into your delusional sewer someplace I have no intention of going again. Been there done that. You are such the clown. Im sure your party membership and brown shirt are in the mail. There will be a special place in hell for Bush, Cheney, and his apologists I hope you enjoy it.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Any by the way where are the WMD's. Where's bin Laden, where are the Iraqis throwing flowers? Such a tool

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#22)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    "Yep, she's a pistol. Ah feel real sorry about her son." Heh Now watch this drive."

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    This thread is about a woman wanting to querstion the president about the death of her son, not about rev moon's lies about 9/11. Try to quote from reputable sources please. The weakly standard is not a newspaper, it is an opinion journal, and cherry picked a quote. Here is the full quote from Kean:
    "Well, there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. At one point, there was thought maybe even Al Qaeda would find sanctuary in Iraq. And there were conversations that went on over a number of years, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessfully."

    "While we don't know about weapons collaboration, particularly chemical collaboration, there was a suspicion in the Clinton administration that when they fired that bomb at that factory, that if, in fact, there were chemicals there, they may have come from Iraq."

    "Having said that, we have found no relationship whatever between Iraq and the attack on 9/11. That just doesn't exist."

    "So I think we are very careful in our wording in using that word "collaborative relationship." I mean, that's what we found. It's language that's evidence-based."
    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#24)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    sailor - Sorry, sir. I'll do better next time, sir. Just answering your buddy SD's comments, sir. But I note he couldn't answer mine, sir. And your comment about the mother is??

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Let's face it, no one can even picture Bush meeting this woman face to face. It would be such a buzzkill for him and the war party.
    The President is CINC, not chief consoler. That is the job of friends, family and religious leaders.
    The president should be able to answer why he is sending people to kill or be killed. Bush supposedly no longer gets boozed up, so there's no way he can look this woman in the eye and lie to her about why her son died. So forget about that. But I would like to see PPJ attend a few funerals. Then the reality could hit him in the face hard enough to wake him up from his partisan pandering to murderous liars. It worked for Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones...so there's even hope for PPJ. But Bush is beyond hope...way beyond.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    And President Johnson personally signed all the KIA letters. Rumsfeld can't be bothered. Forget Bush.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    bush has met with plenty of grieving families, but only with families that agreee with him; he only speaks to crowds that agree with him and has the cops and SS go after everyone else.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    You said it Sailor, maybe Bush will meet with her if she submits her questions to the Ministry of Truth for prior approval?

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    The President is CINC, not chief consoler. That is the job of friends, family and religious leaders I guess that why Lincoln was justified in not writing personal letters to the loved ones of those who had died fighting for the North during the civil war. Right?

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#30)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Enesto writes:
    But I would like to see PPJ attend a few funerals.
    I have. Try it yourself sometime. Hear the children cry. Watch the widow touch the coffin goodby. Listen to Taps being played. Then tell us about the Little Eichmans you referened in another thread this morning/last night.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    The man who doesn't read polls won't go to military funerals because it's bad politics. Or he's lazy. Or he doesn't like having to face the innocent victims of his lies. Since he's on vacation again, it's a trifecta. "Small men took on the powers and airs of tyrants and masters. Years of unpunished brutality and bullying and rape produced a dullness and hardness of conscience. Christian men and women became blind to the clearest commands of their faith and added hypocrisy to injustice. A republic founded on equality for all became a prison for millions." --Murderer GWB, discussing his legacy

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Ernesto.... The president should be able to answer why he is sending people to kill or be killed He has...several times...if you don't get it by now... you never will. et al... As far as "why he died"... It's very simple... when you join the military, you might have to actually take up arms (after all... that is your main duty) and when you take up arms...you might find yourself in 'harms way'. If you don't want to do that...don't join. Simple enough isn't it? I'm not trying to be flippant here, but although I feel for the mother, it's a very stupid question

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    BB... Your responce really does sound flippant. This mother does deserve an answer to her question. After all, the war was declared over long before her son and many other soldiers were killed. Maybe her question isn't so much why did my son have to die, but why in the HELL are we still there?? By the way....No question is stupid... Stupidity is to not ask questions.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    BB... Your responce really does sound flippant. This mother does deserve an answer to her question. After all, the war was declared over long before her son and many other soldiers were killed. Maybe her question isn't so much why did my son have to die, but why in the HELL are we still there?? By the way....No question is stupid... Stupidity is to not ask questions.

    Re: A Question For the President (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    BB...I think the mother knows soldiers sometimes go to war and die, but I think she wants to ask why this war was necessary. I think it's a fair question since I still don't know why it was necessary. Maybe if we had found all those mushroom cloud makers Bush warned us about, she would understand. She deserves an answer, as she has made the sacrifice of a loved one.

    A Question For the President | 34 comments (34 topical)