i am the parent of four military kids, all of whom have benn in iraq and/or afghanistan. i think cindy sheehan is a disgrace. i was fortunate to have my children all come home alive- though changed forever. i do not know how it feels to have a child die at war. however, i do know what it feels like to live with that fear 24/7. our nation has an all volunteer military. sheehan's son made the adult, rational decision to do the thing he felt he must. i live with sadness for all the soldiers and their families who are parted by death in this senseless war. but she is dishonoring her son's decision and committment to his country. she should be ashamed of herself. her son's memory should be honored by good acts, not dragged through the streets like he doesn't matter. cindy sheehan has her own agenda- fine. her son, obviously, did not share her views. she should not do this in her son's name.
2006-08-07 05:55:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by shar71vette 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
During the Civil War, the White House was open to anyone. Soldiers could come in and chat with President Lincoln. The government today, especially int eh past 5 years is more and more closed off from everyday people. I am not sure that a citizen should be able to easily gain access to the presidnet, but if Cindy Sheehan had donated a few million to the Bushes, you know she would have access, just look at Abremoff. Why is the uproar over who does not get to talk to the presidne, and not over who does.
Also the woman lost her son, this is about as powerful and personal as pain can get, who are you to tell her how she shoudl react, and what she should feel.
Free country, remember!
2006-08-07 05:51:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Steven K 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think of Sheehan hated George Bush better than she hated the war in Iraq. She never looked on the sturdy issues Bush did or the sturdy that unfastened'd the electorate of Iraq so as that they could stay universal lives with the removal of Saddam Hussein from this tyranical chief. She would possibly not in basic terms like the war in Afghanistan, yet for the reason that Obama is on the same factor as she, she's not working very hard at protesting now. And the Media chooses to forget approximately her while she does (some thing they did not do while she grew to become into protesting Bush's war. The Media could desire to have disregarded her thoroughly returned then and she or he could have vanished into the woodwork, yet they made a acceptance for her quite.
2016-11-04 01:46:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because she is a spokeswoman for a large political movement that opposes the war. Just because her reasons for joining that movement were more personal than abstract doesn't make the movement less valid.
Hundreds of thousands (if not tens of millions) of Americans oppose the Iraq war. She is speaking out as part of that movement because she believes in it. Just because there are other people who disagree with what she's saying doesn't make it wrong.
As to her speaking to the President, it is a political stunt. It became one after she and other realized that it's never going to happen. So, it became a way to show symbolically that the administration is out of touch with the American people, and that the president can't support his policies. It's a symbolic political tactic, just like hundreds of others that happen in Congress every week. Just like Bush showing up to veto the stem-cell research bill with a dozen babies on the podium. It's a political stunt. No better and no worse than most others.
I have friends and family who have served overseas, including Iraq and in the Gulf War. My dad landed on the beaches at Normandy (WW2). My brother was a Marine embassy guard overseas during the Gulf War. One of my closest friends is going back in October for his second tour in Iraq. I support our troops.
But I also think being in Iraq now is a mistake and it's past time to bring our troops home. And that's the message Sheehan and her group are promoting.
2006-08-07 05:51:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think she is exploiting her son's death. I think she would really like a good reason for his death. Unfortunately, there is no good reason for any death. Yes, I am sure there are some people who use her, but perhaps, she is using them as well to get to speak with the President? No, she's not an expert, she just a mother. I do agree, though my heart goes out to her & all the people who have lost a friend or family member, that it would be impossible for the President to see every person who wanted to speak with him. PS I do not think we should be in Iraq, but that has nothing to do with you question, at least to me.
2006-08-07 05:56:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by shearnerve 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
While I don't agree with her tactics, she is doing what she believes is correct. She is just trying her best to talk to the President about her son's death - she holds him accountable - and to find out the reason behind it. I don't really blame her. I have two nephews overseas, and if they get killed I'd probably want to talk to the president too. It's her right as a citizen. I don't necessarily agree with her tactics, but I do feel for her. What a horrible way to lose a son. That makes her expert enough in my opinion.
2006-08-07 05:49:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by They call me ... Trixie. 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
yeah, she has been exploited somewhat, but she started to do all this on her own, and sometimes the greatest things start that way, just one person standing up. thats how this country started, someone finally said "i'm sick of this, and i'm gonna do something about it. who's with me?".
in the USA, thats your right. even if you're probably not going to make a difference, or even if you're a total whack-job. and, honestly, why is it that the bush cabinet has had her kicked off the property of everything they've held? i mean, she's one women with a cardboard sign standing at the door goin "no more war!!!" but they've had her arrested a bunch of times. thats kinda stupid, and no matter who's side you agree with, you have to admit, she ends up looking a little nuts, but they look like total ***** by arresting her. i mean, losing children to a war would probably mess up most people. i dont really see what arresting a woman for voicing her opinion does to help the situation.
2006-08-07 05:51:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by hellion210 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was asking myself the same thing. Her son signed up for the military. He knew there would be a chance that he'd go to war. He knew there would be a chance he could die. Nothing his mom does now will EVER change what happened to him. If she wants to blame someone, she needs to blame her son, not the president. Stupid woman....I think she's gone a bit cuckoo since her son died.
2006-08-07 05:51:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by SassySours 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, have you lost a son in a worthless war yet?
Then you got no room to criticize.
I say good for her. More of us should be protesting this blood shed based on lies.
Sounds like you have been watching Fox News. It really sounds like you pulled that from Hannity and Colmes or O'Reilly.
2006-08-07 05:49:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by powhound 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Her son would be ashamed of her. I have a son that is about to leave for the second time to fight in Iraq. I would hate for him to be killed and i would be devastated, but, i would never dishonor him...his life or his death. She needs to wake up and deal with her grief another way. Even if she talked to our President it would not bring her son back. Which ever way people feel about he war, we should all become ONE and support our soldiers. We want each and every one to come home safely.
If the public wants to help our soldiers please go to soldiersangels.com.
2006-08-07 05:51:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by notyours 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sheehan is a pawn for the left. They are using her like a whore and when they are done with her they will throw her away. She is already yesterdays news in my book. She is very lucky she hasn't been brought up on charges of treason and had her citizenship revoked. One school of thought has been that she makes hillary look almost conservative. That may fool the liberals but the conservatives are on to it.
2006-08-07 05:49:43
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋