« Able Danger update | Main | Hare-brained romance »
August 14, 2005
Sheehan's opinion
So, what exactly did the mother of Casey Sheehan say in her Sunday opinion piece in our local paper?
[H]e recklessly endangered the life of my son by sending our troops to attack and occupy a country that was no imminent threat to the United States.
First, the President said that we could not afford to wait until the threat was imminent. Second, would Sheehan have us wait until just before an enemy attacked? Seems a little risky to me.
Just because it's too late for Casey and the Sheehan family, why would we want another innocent life taken in the name of this ever-changing and unwinnable mission in Iraq?
Ignoring her defeatism, soldiers are not innocents, and their loss and sacrifice, while regrettable, is part and parcel of being a military professional. Soldiers have always died in service of their country.
I'm angry because every reason the Bush administration gave for the invasion of Iraq has been shown to be false.
The “Bush lied; people died” meme is pathetic. Let’s just leave it at every thing she says in the following ‘graphs is demonstrably untrue, once you remove your tinfoil helmet.
And after every supposed milestone in Iraq -- the capture of Saddam Hussein, the transition to Iraqi rule and, most recently, the Iraq election -- things just don't get better. U.S. soldiers and Iraqis continue to be killed in greater and greater numbers, the cost of the war skyrockets and there's no end in sight.
Crikey! Talk about a glass-is-half-empty kind of gal. Not better? Hussein killed millions, between his sadistic rule of Iraqis and his wars on Iran and Kuwait. For those open-minded liberals who don’t give a crap about these brown people, there’s always Saddam Hussein’s assault on the environment, draining marshes and setting fire to oil wells. Hell, if you pretend the Iraqis were just animals, PETA should be doing a pagan dance of joy at the end to the cruelties inflicted on them by Saddam and his sons.
If and when I do meet with the president this time, it will be for all of the Gold Star Families for Peace that lost children in this war, for all of the mothers and fathers and husbands and wives who are grieving and who want to tell the president to end this devastating war.
Y’know, Casey Sheehan died fighting for a cause he believed in. We know that because he volunteered to serve again. And without taking anything away from the families who have lost their warriors, this is so far from a “devastating war” as to render those words meaningless if one insists on their applicability.
The losses in Iraq represent an unbelievably small number of casualties, compared to the sacrifices Americans have made in the past. From the Civil War to World War I, World War II to Korea and even Vietnam, the carnage has been much greater.
And never before have we liberated an entire nation, toppled a dictator, with fewer casualties, all while taking pains to avoid killing civilians.
No one else, not one more mom, should have to lose her son in Iraq.
And millions of Iraqi mothers no longer have to use their hands to dig up the corpses of their children from mass graves in Iraq; they can thank Casey Sheehan for his sacrifice, and every other American soldier, so their children may enjoy lives filled with possibility and reward, instead of misery, oppression and terror.
Posted by Mike Lief at August 14, 2005 05:52 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
The price of freedom is high--it's always been that way, whether here on our soil or abroad. Thankfully young soldiers like Mr. Sheehan volunteer their services to keep us and others free. I share his mother's grief for her son, she has every right, as a mother, to feel the way she does. It is unfortunate she simply believes what she reads in the liberal media like the Star.
Posted by: Jeff at August 14, 2005 06:05 PM
"The President said we could not wait until an attack is imminent." The danger in that logic is that it gives permission to attack anyone. There was never any real or sufficent evidence that Iraq was a danger to us. Your logic would urge us to attack North Korea first, Iran second, and Iraq third.
Posted by: apostle john at August 14, 2005 11:00 PM
Apostle John,
You said:
"The danger in that logic is that it gives permission to attack anyone. There was never any real or sufficent evidence that Iraq was a danger to us. Your logic would urge us to attack North Korea first, Iran second, and Iraq third."
We have always had "permission" to attack anyone: it's called the right of self-defense; the only question is when to exercise this right of national self-defense.
The President's point -- one that is uncontroverted in my view -- is that in an age of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that are Apocalyptic in their potential for destruction, waiting until after an attack to defend ourselves is no longer possible.
What Marquess of Queensbury Rules would you have us follow, that we would have to suffer the lost of an entire city -- or worse -- before it was "cricket" for us to strike?
My logic does indeed support us going after North Korea, Iran and Iraq. As to the order, well, one must start somewhere, and the framework was in place for a U.N.-sanctioned attack on Iraq first.
But eventually, I believe we'll have to go after the North Koreans and the Iranians, too.
The only question is whether we'll wait until they -- or their surrogates -- strike first.
Posted by: Mike at August 15, 2005 01:22 AM