Politicians really don't like being confronted with the consequences of their actions

rmsharpe said:
So every mother of a killed soldier gets a ticket to meet with the President and dictate policy to him?

I'm sure a lot of them would appreciate the message if he visited a soldier's memorial. You know, just one. Guess he's got scheduling conflicts. As in, he's been scheduling conflicts. :rolleyes:*

*The above punchline has been stolen from Lewis Black. Repeating or reproducing this joke without proper attribution is a federal crime punishable by promotion to Chief Political Adviser to the President of the United States.
 
Last I read in the daily paper: Bush has visited with the families of nearly one thousand of the troopers who got killed in Iraq.

Frankly, Pilate--Bush DOES have scheduling conflicts. He's got 300 million Americans all competing for his attention (not just on Iraq, or on any other war, or war in general--Americans are competing for his attention on EVERYTHING). He cannot take the time to meet with all of them, or anywhere close to it. Politics aside--it's physically impossible.

Edit: Oops--minor correction. Bush has made nearly one thousand VISITS, with relatives of 275 soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the point still holds: there's a finite upper limit on the number of people Bush can shake hands with. That limit is far, far short of the number of people who think Bush should take some time to visit them instead of everybody else.
 
Aphex_Twin said:
To be fair, her son did join the Army on his own free will. Nobody put a gun against his head, he was not dragged out of his home, he made an informed choice.
And his family didn't protest his choice, either. That's why I think the (alleged) fudging of the truth in the news article doesn't make any real difference. The family decided not to make a fuss out of it, until they suddenly acquired a presonal stake in the issue. Guess it was okay for soldiers to get killed as long as those killed were members of other families.

I know that some of the troops that protect my freedoms are going to get killed doing so. I will never have a personal stake in that risk, either (despite the wishes of many anti-war activists that I would do so), because I'm physically unfit for the front lines and would never be able to get anything more than a desk job.

This is why I have a strong preference for a volunteer military. The people at risk of getting killed defending your freedoms should be people willing to do so.
 
Whatever. Politicians make decisions based on what's politically expedient. Not every Gold Star mother takes the effort to travel to Crawford and pester the President, clearly. If he meets with her, takes 20 minutes of his time, then he won't have to hear about it constantly in press conferences, or spend time figuring out how to get the RNC to smear her, or encourage other Gold Star mothers to do the exact same thing and follow him all the way to Washington.

Really, it's a no-brainer.

I guess it's just a basic mark of Bush's hubris and arrogance that he continues to stubbornly refuse to do what's right.

To be fair, her son did join the Army on his own free will. Nobody put a gun against his head, he was not dragged out of his home, he made an informed choice.

Um, just because the military is all volunteers doesn't mean Bush can't be held accountable for wasting their very lives on a wild goose chase for Iraq's WMDs and an idiotic war of choice. People VOLUNTEER to be civil servants too, does that mean the folks in the Pentagon on 9-11 had it coming to them?
 
Please. If Bush took that 20 minutes to see her, he most certainly would continue to hear about the issue in the press. Nothing would be any different. Bush has already visited with the relatives of a couple hundred soldiers lost in Iraq, anyway.

People VOLUNTEER to be civil servants too, does that mean the folks in the Pentagon on 9-11 had it coming to them?
Those people didn't volunteer to risk their lives--that's the key difference. Oh, and by the way--you'd be surprised how many people answer "yes" to that question in boldface there.
 
How many very stupid people, you mean ;) this country has no shortage of those.

Those people didn't volunteer to risk their lives

If lives are needlessly lost through neglect, incompetence, malice, whatever, then people have a right to criticize. Sure, soldiers sign up to risk their lives; does that mean the President has carte blanche in using them up? I find that idea very disturbing. Places the President beyond all accountability.

That's exactly this mother's point, if I understand it correctly. She's not arguing that her son signed up to risk his life. She accepts that. But she's arguing that THE PRESIDENT risked his life for him, and NEEDLESSLY so.
 
Check out the Blog:
theres press and public blog at the ranch

6e26-1.jpg


Note: Check out how vicious the Prowar crowd are. (a lot of flamming . swearing and insults)
link
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
That's exactly this mother's point, if I understand it correctly. She's not arguing that her son signed up to risk his life. She accepts that. But she's arguing that THE PRESIDENT risked his life for him, and NEEDLESSLY so.
Sixty million voters said otherwise. I also said otherwise, even though I didn't vote. Why should the President agree with you, and not me?

In any case, here's what Bush says about this deal:

On Thursday, Bush, while acknowledging that some families of U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq want to bring the troops home now, said he believed that would be a big mistake.

"Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy," he said.
If you think Cindy will be able to change Bush's opinion, you're wrong. He's already stated that he disagrees with Cindy, and he's also looked right into the eyes of a bunch of other people who lost loves ones in Iraq.
 
Aren't Republicans really nice people?
This is why we no longer reach across the damn aisle to these people.

Conservative knucklehead and radio host Mike Gallagher gathered a group of like-minded troglodytes and headed over to the Bush compound in Crawford to harass Cindy Sheehan and her group last night.

As Ms. Sheehan and the "Camp Casey" protesters sang America The Beautiful or stood quietly, the right-wing group chanted "we don't care" at the mother who lost her son, Casey, to Bush's war in Iraq.

Cindy will follow the Commander-in-Thief back to Washington in the likely event he does not meet with her in Crawford.

You know what that means: Those of us who live on the East Coast can join her much easier. We need to make plans to do that.
 
NBC Nightly News is reporting on this.
 
Crawford ranch is always filled with protesters. Some against Bush and some in support of him. Must be pretty annoying for the locals.

I just heard on NBC that one of the farmers got mad at the protesters on his property and fired a shotgun over their heads.
 
There was a news report on this... in Australia. Getting to be big news.

Remember you heard it on CFC forums first... premier news coverage from around the world.
 
BasketCase said:
If you think Cindy will be able to change Bush's opinion, you're wrong. He's already stated that he disagrees with Cindy, and he's also looked right into the eyes of a bunch of other people who lost loves ones in Iraq.

Cindy has spoken publicly about what she wishes to speak to the President about and withdrawel is not one of them.
 
FriendlyFire said:
Cindy has spoken publicly about what she wishes to speak to the President about and withdrawel is not one of them.

Ah, yes she has.

HONOR OUR LOVED ONE'S SACRIFICES: BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!!
http://www.gsfp.org/
This is from the Group Gold Star Families for Peace. Cindy was a founding member of this organization.

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.

This is a quote from her in Slate Magazine.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/
 
Back
Top Bottom