... well said:Maybe she feels that this movement is ultimately what will give meaning to Casey's death, even though she originally hoped for a meeting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083001592.htmlSheehan Glad Bush Didn't Meet With Her
By ANGELA K. BROWN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 30, 2005; 11:33 PM
CRAWFORD, Texas -- A woman who led an anti-war protest for nearly a month near President Bush's ranch said Tuesday that she's glad Bush never showed up to discuss her son's death in Iraq, saying the president's absence "galvanized the peace movement."
Cindy Sheehan's comments came as war protesters packed up their campsite near the ranch and prepared to leave Tuesday for a three-week bus tour.
"I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful he did not meet with me, because we have sparked and galvanized the peace movement," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there."
In the meantime, I hope Bush will continue his negative sell tactics against Cindy and anti war activists. It makes him look as ugly as he really is. And I hope people like fib remain oblivious to the changing of the guard.
So then this is/was about her and getting her meeting? If she got it she would have just gone home and been done with it? Doesn't sound like she's terribly dedicated to a cause really. The things it seems that hurt her position in some people's eyes is that she comes off as selfish and self promoting. She doesn't seem to give much reason to believe otherwise.Sheehan said:"If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there."
TheStatutoryApe said:So then this is/was about her and getting her meeting? If she got it she would have just gone home and been done with it? Doesn't sound like she's terribly dedicated to a cause really. The things it seems that hurt her position in some people's eyes is that she comes off as selfish and self promoting. She doesn't seem to give much reason to believe otherwise.
1 said:Let me put it this way:
President Bush did not kill her son.
Her son signed up, he was not drafted.
He knew what could happen to him, but he still went.
He was mature enough to make his own decision, he was not "conned" into the millitary.
He sacrificed his life for his country.
He did not have to go.
Do you understand?
She still has the right to protest, but her protest makes no sence.
If Bush had met with her it could have taken away her anger and defused the situation. I think she is glad he didn't because she has sparked an anti-war movement.TheStatutoryApe said:So then this is/was about her and getting her meeting? If she got it she would have just gone home and been done with it? Doesn't sound like she's terribly dedicated to a cause really. The things it seems that hurt her position in some people's eyes is that she comes off as selfish and self promoting. She doesn't seem to give much reason to believe otherwise.
Since she did have a kid die, as pattylou said, she gets a free pass on irrational and selfish behavior. I find no fault in anything she did.TheStatutoryApe said:So then this is/was about her and getting her meeting? If she got it she would have just gone home and been done with it? Doesn't sound like she's terribly dedicated to a cause really. The things it seems that hurt her position in some people's eyes is that she comes off as selfish and self promoting. She doesn't seem to give much reason to believe otherwise.
edward said:No but he sent him to die for oil.
There is no draft, hasn't been one for years.
He was a mechanic, he did not have a combat MOS.
Have you talked to a recruiter lately?
He sacrificed his life so you can buy gasoline.
Even as a mechanic he had no choice but to go.
Do you understand?
What do you know about losing a son in a war that is about oil??
Yep - you obviously know what you are talking about, pattylou. Boy, they would *not* like to see what huge movements I would mobilise against them if they killed *my* son in their imperialist war! No, surely they would not want to unleash that demon. But I have taught my son well, and unless there is conscription...pattylou said:It wasn't about a cause, no. It was about her screaming "Why did my kid die?!"
That a movement has grown out of it probably makes her think she now has a reason, in retrospect, for why her kid died.
You can say it's nuts, if you want, but that's how it goes. When your kid dies, you feel like you're facing a mountain that you have to tunnel through, and your only tool is a spoon.
Was it selfish? In the sense that she is surviving one day at a time, any way she can, sure. Was it also selfless? In the sense that she feels the way she does because of her love for her child, with whom mothers are completely tied up as a matter of course, yes - it was also selfless.
Quite!edward said:No but he sent him to die for oil.
Excellent point, edward!edward said:Have you talked to a recruiter lately?
...at higher prices, so that those who own the oil companies (and now control the price of oil) can make higher profits.edward said:He sacrificed his life so you can buy gasoline.
Hmm, I suspect we have some very effective blinkers on... so, hmmm, probably not, edward (so sad, isn't it?)edward said:Do you understand?
Yes, good question. Answer it, you gung-ho guys who are *so* in favour of this 'war'! What *do* you know about losing your son for this reason, huh?edward said:What do you know about losing a son in a war that is about oil??
he meets with them in group sessions.Astronuc said:Should Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan?
Not at the moment, he needs to be in New Orleans.
Perhaps later. I think Bush should personally meet with all the families whose sons and daughters were killed or severely wounded.
He made the decision - he put them in harms way.