August 16, 2005


Apparently the Left thinks that in order to properly gain support for their anti-war beliefs, they need to repeat the word "useless", specifically in reference to Cindy Sheehan's son's "useless sacrifice" in Iraq.

In my life, I have known many people who have died before their time. Car accidents, drugs, suicide, drowning, and murder have taken people I knew and cared about. So did the game Red Rover, when my brother's friend died when tightly linked arms made him fall and hit his head. There's nothing more senseless or "useless" than dying during a game at Vacation Bible School. Young people die from being impaled with a golf club or mauled by the family dog. Those deaths are useless indeed.

I submit that dying in Iraq is about one of the most noble deaths for a young man or woman. There's no honor in getting hit by a bus, but the sacrifice that these soldiers and marines are making is anything but useless. These 1853 Americans have died for the good of not only their own country but for the good of Iraq. They have died so that others can be free.

That's about the most useFUL sacrifice a man can make.


Our nation's sons have given their lives so that Iraq's mothers can find peace.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:33 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

1 while cindy sheehan is wrong it is understandable why she feels the way she a veteran if you asked me who cares more about my welfare my parents or a politican how do you think i would answer?bush 43 should just meet with her,take the tongue lashing and then go back to better equip our troops and coming up with a way to win this damn war.

Posted by: tommy at August 16, 2005 08:38 AM (NMK3S)

2 He's met with her once. She came away feeling better. Why is she entitled to repeat visits, just so she can berate him? There's no law or moral code that says you are obligated to feed political grandstanding.

Posted by: Jason at August 16, 2005 10:53 AM (565iX)

3 I have been waiting for you to comment on this lady. I live about 40 minutes from the President’s ranch and have been tempted to go show my support for the mission and memory of my husband but don’t want to get caught in the “circus”. My husband believed in the mission and what he was doing. Even though he was killed, I still follow what is happening and still hoping that a productive nation develops. I know Sean would be mortified if any of his family went to protest. I think this mom is motivated by something other than her son’s memory.

Posted by: H. Sims at August 16, 2005 12:16 PM (Aog7E)

4 I agree with you Sarah! I don't think the death of Cindy Sheehan's son Casey is useless. He is one of my HERO's Cindy Sheehan is fighting the grief over the loss of her son. I wish she would protest the insurgents, or as I call them, Santan's sons. What bothers me a lot is the statement she made when she said she " asked Casey not to go. I'll take you to Canada" Wow! He freely joined the Army and I'm guessing he was A PROUD AMERICAN. And I'm proud of Casey for honoring his commitment to his country. I am forever indebted to him for his couragous sacrifice, as I am Sean Sims, and Doyle Hufstedler, and Andy White, and the rest of the 1850 Men & Women who died. I'm thinking Casey would not want his mother to do this. Not this way. not with Micheal Moore and all the other nuts riding on her band wagon. She sounds confused. She made the statement that she wanted to ask Bush why he hasn't sent the twins to Iraq! EASY answer. They have to Volunteer. I am mother of a 1AD Soldier. I said everything I could to prevent my son from joining the Army, but in the end, it was his call, and after that I supported him, and I'm still supporting him 9 years later. If it wasn't for the Men & Women in the Military, Cindy Sheehan wouldn't be talking.

Posted by: Beth Osborne at August 16, 2005 04:34 PM (Sa8fl)

5 Sarah, even more so. He died trying to save his comrades. He volunteered to dive in and try to help save them though he didn't have to. Today was the first time I heard someone on the news mention this. I mean, I knew because of the mil-blogs, but had yet to read it in the Daily News (CA paper) or hear it on CNN or Fox. It was a military analyst on Fox who mentioned it. To any other commenters. I'm not saying the MSM has never reported it, just that I had yet to see it until today and about a week after having read it on a mil blog. Keep the faith, keep your chin up, Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at August 16, 2005 09:47 PM (9RG5y)

6 I guess that if this woman down in Texas disturbs him too much then he could take a month-long vacation. ONLY a month-long vacation, I mean... right now he is scheduled for a full five weeks. I'm curious what people on the right, and especially those of you with family members in Texas, think about THAT. I would be insulted, in your shoes. I understand that he can have meetings, make decisions, etc. in TX; it isn't like I think he is completely goofing off down there. Still, taking that long of a vacation when there are people in combat seems pretty tacky to me. Considering what is being asked of the troops in the field, surely a little more intensity of focus isn't too much to ask from the commander in chief.

Posted by: Pericles at August 16, 2005 09:50 PM (hHudX)

7 Bush needs to get on with his life. He needs to live a balanced life untroubled by trouble. That's what the people want.

Posted by: Dave at August 16, 2005 10:27 PM (5FMmj)

8 My husband got a month of leave after OIFii; I believe the Commander in Chief has earned the same. Besides, the president is never really on vacation.

Posted by: Sarah at August 17, 2005 01:59 AM (CPjNj)

9 Well, of course Bush is getting more than a month. That aside, I've got to think that the people living in the desert and getting shot at have earned the break a little more. After all, the White House is quite a bit more comfortable than a tent in the desert, and he gets to see his wife every day. Think about it this way; Bush enjoys more creature comforts when he is "at work" than people in the military do "on leave," unless they are independently wealthy. Finally, when people leave Iraq new people come in; the people there at any given time are still 100% focused on the job. When Bush goes ranching he still has the same responsibilities; he just gives them less attention.

Posted by: Pericles at August 17, 2005 08:35 AM (hHudX)

10 well cindy sheehan isn't stupid.she knows that if bush 43 meets with her shhe wins.and if he doesn't she still wins because no matter how much fox news tries to spin the story she still is a grieving mother.not a fun target to pick on no matter who on loony left supprorts her.the only good news is kicks the paris hiltons,brad pitts,etc off the front page and hopefully gets this adminstration back on the ball.if not my senator is going to be the next commander-in-chief.and she doesn't like baking cookies when she goes on vacation.

Posted by: tommy at August 17, 2005 08:49 AM (NMK3S)

11 So that the looney right's involvement with this case doesn't go unmarked:

Posted by: Pericles at August 17, 2005 09:10 AM (hHudX)

12 W should on no uncertain terms meet with this woman again. She had her chance. She met with W. She liked the meeting and the President's character. Then she changed her mind. So is she a liar? Yes. End of story.

Posted by: patd95 at August 17, 2005 05:22 PM (ogWpI)

13 Sheehan is trying to do what Kerry did back during vietnam. Using the cover of experience to insulate her from criticism. i would not be surprised to see her running for office in ten years. One difference between sheehan and Kerry though. Sheehan is a disgusting anti-semite.

Posted by: annika at August 18, 2005 11:49 AM (x1LVG)

14 I had to check the "anti-semite" thing out. Apparently she has said that she thinks the neo-con agenda we are following in the Middle East is based on the defense of Israel and supported by por-Israeli PACs. Well, isn't that true, to a point? It sounds like she is guilty of an exaggeration, but I don't think that makes her an anti-Semite. You can hate Israel or Israeli policy without hating Jews; indeed, I know many Jews who hate Israeli policies. In fact, in what I read she didn't even criticize Israel; she just said that her son signed up to defend our country, not someone else's. How hard would I have to look to find conservatives saying exactly this about Kosovo, do you think? It wasn't a liberal who invented the phrase "We can't be the world's policeman." For the record, by the way, I think you could find much better evidence to paint Sheehan as a bit of a flake. I heard her talking about how we are fighting a "nuclear war" in Iraq. She must be thinking about DU, which I thought they were phasing out anyway, but calling that nuclear war is quite a stretch. I'm inclined to just ignore people in her position, though. The way that I look at it is that losing a loved one could push anyone over the edge. I'm happy to agree that she as an individual has no particular right to a meeting with Bush, etc.

Posted by: Pericles at August 18, 2005 01:39 PM (hHudX)

15 Pericles -- I asked my husband about depleted uranium. He was a tanker for three years, and he said he never once has seen or been near those type of rounds. He said perhaps 3ID might have taken some into the initial battle (thinking they might be up against tanks, which they didn't), but he is fairly confident that no one is using depleted uranium in Iraq now.

Posted by: Sarah at August 19, 2005 04:35 AM (9bFZk)

16 Of course it's not reported in the MSM, but Sheehan has associated herself with a few anti-Israel groups and she recently said that Israel should get out of Palestine. Which is an extreme position with which OBL, Saddam Hussein and Hammas would be in complete agreement. Criticizing Israel is one thing, but anyone who doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist is an anti-semite in my opinion. ps, i would think that the number of people in this world who "hate Israel without hating Jews," while not necessarily zero, is infinitessimally small.

Posted by: annika at August 20, 2005 01:36 AM (h8R3T)

17 Useless, huh? It seems like these folks believe that the very necessity for us to struggle invalidates the righteousness of our cause, while perversely, the enemy's struggles elevate his cause over ours. What would Frederick Douglass say? "Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters." The struggle is part of the deal if we're true to our beliefs and our heritage. As Americans, we need to remember what is worth struggling for, and the value of victory.

Posted by: Eric at August 20, 2005 05:22 PM (TlgLy)

18 The real usless ones are the ones who sit around the sheehan camp and do nothing but scream and yell and sit around all day on their usless butts

Posted by: spurwing plover at August 28, 2005 03:41 PM (S97cI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
53kb generated in CPU 0.0139, elapsed 0.0827 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.0738 seconds, 185 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.