2007-04-09 04:06:49 · 17 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Interesting distinction people make between the two - clearly based on YOUR OWN beliefs, and not what THEIR beliefs might be. I think it's interesting that any of us thinks we have the right to judge either of these people, or weigh what they're doing in response to the loss of a loved one. Incidentally, Earnest, once again, your statistics are off. I have no feelings whatsoever for either John Walsh or Cindy Sheehan, or their responses to the loss of their children. And that's as it should be. They weren't MY kids, and I have no right to judge the way their parents react to losing them.
2007-04-09 04:29:16 · update #1
Yeah, isn't he technically doing the same thing??? I don't see a difference!
2007-04-09 04:13:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋
John Walsh's son was slaughtered by some horrendously horrid evil "human being",and he has spent his entire life since then trying to make sure it never happens to anyone again if he can help it,obviously he can't solve everything but helping to catch the criminals who do this kind of thing has been his lifes mission since the death of his son.
Cindy Sheehans son was killed tragically in a war by a fighting in a military force that he volunteered for,and fought bravely with. And she has spent every moment crapping on his memory ever since. Do you have any indication that her son considered himself a victim? Because I have yet to see any evidence that he was anything other than proud to serve. In fact it seems Patrick Sheehan feels the same since he filed for divorce shortly after she began her little crusade. You cannot even compare the actions of the two.
AD
2007-04-09 12:14:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
they are in the same boat. Each lost a son. Yet Walsh is a hero and Sheehan is treated by the right as a villain. Makes NO sense.
2007-04-09 11:20:01 · answer #3 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sorry, I see no connection between John Walsh and Cindy Sheehan. John Walsh's child was an innocent that did not choose to put his life in danger. Cindy Sheehan's son chose to serve his country knowing he might be killed.
2007-04-09 11:12:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 3⤋
Watched an expose on Sheehan.....Father said she was hardly there for her son and the son was a volunteer,believed in the cause and gave his life....She's out for fame and she should be ashamed of what she has done to her son's memory.Just another lib....
2007-04-09 11:58:19 · answer #5 · answered by killa d 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Different scenario, but nice try... John Walsh's son did not die fighting for something he believed in, he did not choose to join this murder in his quest of molesting him and killing him. John Walsh's son was a child a young child... And what happened to him can't even begin to be compared to the Sheehan's, Cindy's son joined the Military, willingly went over to fight and was killed in the process... It's sad but it's what happened.
Another difference is Sheehans' son had gear to protect him, weapons to fight with and was fully trained soldier..
Walsh's son, was a child he wasn't a trained soldier, he had nothing to defend himself with and I wish the boy had a gun or weapon he could have used against his killer, maybe he wouldn't have been tortured and murdered by that man!!
2007-04-09 11:14:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
John Wlash goes after people who commit heinous crimes due to his sons murder never being solved. Walsh's son did not even reach the age to VOLUNTEER for the military. He was kidnapped and brutally murdered while still a young child.
Sheehan's son was a brave individual who signed up for the military and died because of that. We respect his life and death, but to have her ranting about saying her sons death was pointless belittles the very cause he was fighting for.
2007-04-09 11:13:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
If anyone has the right to make something a cause celebre, it's Cindy Sheehan and John Walsh. After all, if anyone knows what it's like to lose a child, whether it be because of an injust war or because of a child abductor, it's these two.
2007-04-09 11:11:49 · answer #8 · answered by tangerine 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
First; I must question the inyellectual capacity of ANYONE who equates the two cases as being even vaguely similar.
Apart from the obvious differences - all pointed out quite eloquently by the other posters before me, - the main ditinction is that people DO NOT object to her grief over losing her son, they object to her expressing that grief in terms of hating America and hating Bush, and empathizing with the terrorists who actually KILLED her boy.
(hint: if you want to invoke sympathy for your cause, DON 'T refer to your sons murderers as 'freedom fighters'.)
2007-04-09 11:59:04 · answer #9 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
John Walsh is trying to help the cause that killed his child and Cindy Sheehan has made a joke of what her son stood for. She might as well have spit on his grave. She should be honoring what he died for.
2007-04-09 11:12:25 · answer #10 · answered by smile4u 5 · 8⤊ 3⤋
The difference is John Walsh has worked to bring criminals to justice.
Cindy Sheehan has USED the death of her son to embarrass his good name.
2007-04-09 11:13:09 · answer #11 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 9⤊ 2⤋