This issue has been bugging me for quite some time. There are several angles from which I would love to vent regarding this situation. Among which are the following
1)Her son volunteered, this was always a possibility. If her son was a police officer who died on his way to a phony emergency would she blame the police chief for murdering her son?
2)The media has really made her a hero. We all should make these demands on the President.
3)I may be wrong but I believe she was quoted as saying that she wanted the President to sit down with every family who has lost someone in this conflict and explain why we are there. What I find interesting regarding this is that it is almost possible. Excepting the previous Gulf War, we have lost the fewest American lives in this conflict than any other. Someone making the same demand of President Roosevelt or Truman regarding WWII would be deemed ridiculous.
But I'm not going to expound on those. Here is what bothers me the most:
Her son is a hero. He accepted his duty (I believe he actually re-upped after his first term expired. I could be wrong.) and he went to war to defend his country (I'm not getting into that either.) However, here is his mother saying that this war is pointless, useless, and wrong. What, then, did he die for? If he died for nothing he is no hero. His own mother is striping him of the honor and respect he has rightfully earned.
That doesn't sit well with me. I will continue to believe that this conflict is necessary and I will continue to view the fallen as heroes.
And that's just my opinion.
2 comments:
Agreed. She's obnoxious, if pitiable. Seems to me that the issue here is the autonomy of her son; if she respects his decision, why protest? Thereagain, a mother's love....
(Found your blog from Thom's.)
Glad your on board man! Welcome to the blogspot. Just some thoughts if I may, regarding your first post.
Your first point: True. Sheehan may be seeking her fifteen minutes of fame. And true that her son volunteered for an occupation which may require him to sacrifice his life. But I think your analogy is faulty.
Perhaps the best scenario is to ask ourselves how we might feel under similar circumstances. You volunteer for the armed services in 2000 during a time of relative peace, hoping some limited time service will provide a financial leg up for your future. 9/11 unfolds and America changes. The Bush Admin provides numerous charges against Iraq of harboring WMD in order to use them against our country, and in order to prevent something along the lines of 9/11, we must strike first. We do, and only 5 days after you are deployed into Iraq, you are killed.
Soon it is found that the very reason we decided to strike first, wasn't really a reason at all. Namely the WMD was no where to be found. The gov't apparently was either severly misinformed, or lied about it. Would your family have a right to be upset? I'm thinking it's a fair reason to protest.
Your second point: Couldn't disagree more. (Predictably) Drudge, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh have all spoken poorly of Sheehan. NPR has been covering it but their reporting has been fairly beneign.
Third Point: Someone making the same demands of Truman or Roosevelt would be deemed ridiculous because we didn't fight WWII over false pretenses.
Thanks for the thoughts Marcus. And thanks for allowing me to have have a comment on your blog. I am quite honored. :)
Post a Comment