I haven't commented on the Cindy Sheehan story so far because it's been pretty low down on my "interest radar". It seems like the Left belives that it has found a figure to rally the anti-war movement around. I also discovered today (from my parents) that the TV news over here has been covering her too, in glowing terms.
For what it's worth here's my take on it- her son Casey volunteered to join the military knowing full well that he could be sent into harms way. As an adult he had the right to make that decision. Mrsa. Sheehan did get to meet Bush, but as she said at the time she did not give voice to her feelings because of the feelings of her son. I don't think that any soldier serving would want to think that his or her death would be used as it his is now, particularly by groups who support the "insurgency", the men who actually did kill Casey. And let's not forget that important point- Bush didn't kill her son, terrorists in Iraq did. If Cindy Sheehan really wanted to honour her fallen son, I do not believe she would use him in this way- because this does not seem to be what he would have wanted.
My final word on the matter (for now anyway) is to say this- go and read Greg Gutfeld's post on this. He catches the essence of her protest-
THE CHIEF BRODY SLAP (CBS) is a chief staple in an any liberal diet: a fiery mix of outrage, self-rightious indignation and condemnation delivered from a moral highground so lofty it gives you a nosebleed. The Brody Slap is predicated on the idea that you don't need a solution, only blame. Who needs a real alternative when you're already outraged? It's easy!
2 comments:
"Bush didn't kill her son, terrorists in Iraq did"
Hahaha - do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
Why is bush so afraid of Cindy Sheehan? Its quite simple really, she speaks the TRUTH.
Try this for just one second, there is no left and there is no right, just be a fukin human being for once and open your eyes and your mind. Bush LIED to start a war and you're happy about that? Iraq was never a threat to the United States, yet bush has sent thousands to their deaths, not to mention the countless hundreds of thousands of lost innocent civilians.
American soldiers are there to defend the country, not to defend oil fields and Israel.
Now here's the kicker, is America safer now??... mmmmm.. I dont think so and saying anything to the contrary proves your ignorance.
Use your brain and make yourself heard. Forget about all these labels: liberal/democrat/right/left/republican etc.. and just be a fukin person.
It's ridiculous to point out that Caey Sheehan was actually killed by terrorists in Iraq? Excuse me, but was Bush over there with an RPG? These terrorists are in a country which is facing democractic elections. IF they were Iraqi citizens they had every opportunity to join in the democractic process and make their voice heard through the ballot box. Instead they chose to assassinate American troops who had liberated them from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein and given the country its first free election in a generation.
Bush didn't lie- he had the same information that Congress and the intelligence agencies of most of the world had. He also had a UN resolution which told Hussein that he had to comply with weapons inspections (part of the Gulf war peace deal by the way- ten years down the line and he was still messing them around). Hussein did not comply- everyone thought he had WMDs. Bush could only have been said to have been lying if he knew Hussein had no WMDs but aid he did anyway.
Also, WMDs were only one of the reasons we went to war.
Iraq did threaten the United States because Hussein was a dangerous tyrant who had already gone to way with Iran and Kuwait. Imagine the effects on the world if he had invaded Saudi Arabia, or used one of the illegal ling range missiles he was developing to attack Israel. You don't think that a Middle Eastern war wouldn't have had a detrimental effect on the US? You don't think that oil increasing to $100 PLUS wouldn't have ruined the economy and devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans? Let me put it in simple terms- the world depends on oil- not just for petrol for cars, but fuel to transport food around the world. We need it to manufacture the plastics that are used in just abut everything. No oil means that industries can go belly up and then you're looking at an economy to rival post-WW1 Germany.
That's only one scenario. Who knows what Saddam Hussein might have done. Could anyine have predicted he'd invade Kuwait?
Is America safer now? Well, Saddam is gone and an elected government is sitting in its place. Less chance of a war with Iraq's neighbours, I'd say. Also gone are Saddam's safe havens for terrorists and training camps. Abu Nidal was working out of an Iraqi government office when Saddam was in power. Al-Zarqawi fled there after the war in Afghanistan.
The terrorist attacks there continue but with less and less support from Iraqis themselves.
Has there been another 9/11? No. Can we thank Iraq and the flypaper theory for that? Possibly yes. The terrorists are there being killed by American and Iraqi troops- they are not conducting another Beslan in small town America, they are not flying planes into skyscrapers.
What would you rather have? A war in distant Iraq which is being won (read Michael Yon if you want to see what the troops themselves see) or terorist attacks in America? What would you rather have- Saddam Hussein in power to destabilise the region and torture and slaughter his own people, or a free democratic society? Answer that.
The terrorists who killed Casey Sheehan don't want the Iraqis to be free, to have the rights that you and I take for granted. Iraqi civilians, police and governmentr workers are their prime targets- not American troops. Their "insurgency" is not against an American occupation, it's against a free Iraq where they will not be able to create their totalitarian nigthmare.
American soldiers know that they may be asked to go and fight on foreign soil, just as they did in the Gulf War. Are you saying that war was wrong? Should we have let Saddam Hussein destroy Kuwait? Are we wrong to have liberated the people of Afghanistan and Iraq? Should we have let the mass graves and torture rooms continue? You be a f**king person and answer that- could you stand by while you know that's going on? Are you really saying you'd rather that continued? Would you rather we pulled the troops out and left the people of Iraq to the terrorists who have no qualms about killing them? Seriously, could you do that? Leave 25 million people to the whims of terrorists who even now care nothing about blowing up children with car bombs?
That's what this war is about now regardless of how it started- the FACT is we're there and we need to be there to safeguard the Iraqi people and deny the terrorists a country to do with what they will. The alternative to staying the course is seeing Iraq turned into another Taliban-Afghanistan complete with terrorist training camps. Is that what you'd prefer?
Post a Comment