Posted on 08/10/2005 1:47:20 PM PDT by Sam Hill
From: SCINDY...@aol.com
To: ter...@mweb.co.th ; bullyard@googlegroups.com
Cc: skee...@ksc.th.com ; jwa...@cox.net ; h...@bfranklin.edu ; steppenwo...@msn.com ; Kurn...@netscape.net ; m...@loxinfo.co.th ; TQMN...@aol.com ; zpbr...@cox.net ; sharinpa...@hotmail.com ; v...@netium.com.br
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Nightline Tonight Mon., March 14, 2005
That was my son's unit. He was killed on that day 04/04/04. Here is a letter that I wrote to NightLine about the broadcast:
Love
Cindy Sheehan
March 15, 2005
To Whom it May Concern:
Imagine my distress when I turned Night Line on last night and I was confronted with the gory details of my son's murder in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq on 04/04/04. Imagine, also, my sorrow and rage at the side of the story that you presented to the American public.
[SNIP]
I was on the Night Line Townhall Meeting in Washington, DC on 01/27/05. After I spoke (which I think was a fluke), Ted Koppel dismissed me as being "emotional." First of all, how can I approach this discussion without emotions, MY SON WAS KILLED, AND KILLED FOR LIES? Second of all, that show was not fair and balanced and I think the conclusion "Should we stay" was foregone.
The show last night was also not fair and balanced. To see all the wives being interviewed who had not lost their husbands and to hear what "hard work" it is to be left behind when their husbands are at war. How hard to you think it is to have a child killed in an illegal and immoral war? In this "wonderful" group of families left behind, we had exactly ONE of the wives call us..she is Diane Rose who was my son's Colonel, Frank Rose's wife. The last time we heard from Diane was in October and we feel we have been left behind by anyone connected to the 2-5 Cavalry. Is support only given if your loved one stays alive? One wife was quoted as saying that Sundays were the hardest for the families left behind. My son was killed on Palm Sunday last year..how does anybody think Sundays are for my family?
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.
It would be so amazing if your show would put me, or another parent who lost their child on who disagrees with the war and this administration: to have just an entire show..without presenting the false side of the debate. That would take a lot of courage and integrity. I hope your program will exhibit these qualities.
I also think that Mr. Koppel owes me an apology for the rude way I was treated on his show. After I expressed myself about the war being based on lies and that the troops should be brought home immediately because the war was based on lies, I was not thanked for my comments, or my son's sacrifice. He just said to keep the discussion away from emotions. Then, the wife of a soldier who was killed was allowed to speak and she praised the policies of this deplorable and despicable administration, and she was thanked and praised by the panel.
read archived Novak columns or get old Capital Gang transcripts. Or, just google it. Rove and Neocons.
I like to think of the situation of Israel (and/or Jews, depending on the specific issue) as a sort of Canary for the West. Because if that canary drops over, it means all of us miners had best get the hell outta Dodge, and fast, or in a few minutes we are going to meet its fate.
If Israel falls, that means someone was strong enough and ruthless eough to take it down. And if they hate Israel, that means they almost assuredly hate America. And if they were willing to absorb the losses to take down the little Satan, how much more are they willing to sacrifice to destroy the great Satan? The mackdaddy of democracy, capitalism, and the force for modernization. My guess is: a HELL of a lot. And if someone is strong enough to take down Israel, a) they are strong enough to severely hurt us, if not topple us b) enjoying some sort of support network and c) clearly making a play for power, and challenging America, daring it to come after them (Ha, you can't! We have killed the little Satan, and massacred the Jews and driven their children into the sea! You dare not invade! we have the anthrax, we have the nuclear weapon! Death to America!)
Which, I am sure you will agree, is not a great situation for us to be in. This way, a) Israel is going to keep them occupied, or at least split their attention b) We are upholding our values and supporting a fellow democracy c) We have a canary in the mineshaft d) They are a continuing source of nice things: HUGE medical advancements (like you wouldn't believe), a strong market for American goods and investment, and investers in America e) A regional voice f) A supporting voice at the U.N., which you notice we are quite short of g) We are keeping world peace. Israel is a nuclear power, and has M.A.D. in place (read: Nuclear war is bad, and we don't want it. Therefore, so Israel does not launch nukes in retaliation for its destruction, and unleashes more chaos, we should keep it alive) h) Why not support Israel? What have they ever done to us? (Also for that matter, though, we should support Taiwan, the reformers in Iran, etc. etc)
I could keep going, but I think you see my drift.
It's not my primary concern. My primary concern is that the ideals, values and philosophies that made the West great live on forevermore and are continuously championed, even when we are gone, new powers have risen and fallen, and all humans have a fourth set of limbs and six eyes. That's my primary concern. Supporting Israel is a means to that end.
I don't know if it has already been mentioned, but she was full of praise for the President, after she met with him in Seattle several months after her son's death.
I hate to say it, but it looks like she is looking for her 15 minutes. I'll bet her son would not be proud of the dishonest vitriol spewing from her mouth.
Its my theory on its code meaning among the left. Others have suggested it as well.
Likewise, nopardons.
And funded by Soro's
Seems O'Reilly didn't do his homework on this women
Mrs. Sheehan is steaming because she thinks we are in Iraq because of Israel.
I agree that that is one of at least three reasons we are there, none of which is the invasion of Manhattan.
Don't bother to give me the beltway blather on why we chose secularist Iraq over the Jihadists, pop.
My mother in law has a picture of her son going through his bris on the kitchen wall!
"Careful Sam, you're creeping perilously close to acknowledging that are troops and our treasury are bleeding for Israel and not for our national interest."
Only in your raving imagination. That is what you seem to believe. And what Cindy Sheehan and OBL believe. See a pattern?
I believe we went into Iraq for a number of reasons. Because of the inspection violations, the ceasefire violations, to keep the pressure on the terrorists (who were finding sanctuary in Iraq)--and yes, because something had to be done to change the pattern in Iraq.
Democracies (to use a shorthand term) don't start wars. Democracies don't breed terrorists.
Right now the only three nations that have elections in the Middle East are Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't think that people in the Middle East aren't noticing? Do you think what is going on for the good in Iran is happening in a vacuum? In Libya? Syria?
"I simply said we should have hunted down our enemy and killed him"
When did we stop trying to do that? Post the link. But even if we had done that, BFD. It wouldn't change a thing, except make OBL more of a hero martyr. What we are doing in Iraq is doing more long term good than anything else tried in the last hundred years.
"Your implication that our primary concern must be Israel would be treasonous, wouldn't it?"
You're full of crap. I care as much as Israel as I do any country full of people who don't deserve to be murdered. I was for helping the Serbs. Your anti-Semitism is making you project things onto me that do not exist. You and Cindy are peas in a pod.
Make up your mind. To the Sheehan/Bin-Laden/Buchanan axis "material support to Israel" is a US policy of interference in the region.
It must not be Israel. It must be the survival of our philosophies, values, and ideals. Israel is a means to an end, a friend, and an issue for many of our citizens (more than just Jews, you know).
Also, even if that was his implication, it would not be treasonous. You are either slandering him, using it in a hyperbolic way or you don't know the meaning. Treason is the act of co-operating with an enemy. Or rather, from the law, "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." So unless he was trying to deliberately injure, overthrow or make war against America and that his support of Israel was a means to that end (even if the ultimate end is the victory of the enemy country), he is not committing treason.
Treason is normally secretive too. If true, he would be committing sedition. Which is an open act of treason
Did the MSM ever talk about the anti-war KOOKS's KGB backing, in the '50s,'60s, and '70's? NOT ONCE!
Ewwww...
"Seems O'Reilly didn't do his homework on this women"
Now that's a shock. LOL
To all of you... Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and the rest of you Heroes serving honorably, risking life and limb at every turn; First of all, Thank You from the bottom of my heart for answering the call.
Pray tell, how many of you, if you gave the ultimate sacrifice, would want your mother to embarrass your honor in this manner?
I've heard that too, but I'm not sure if I believe it.
That was in 1991. And the whole cost of that war was paid by the US allies.
I will try and explain again. After 9/11, everyone knew the problem was Islamic in nature. The neocons were convinced that if we invaded Iraq and turned it into a functioning western democracy that it would have a spill over effect in the rest of the area thus making the entire region safer. Jordan and Egypt, our friends said it would just create more Jihadists.
The neocons were convinced that since Iraq had a secular tradtion, it would be easy to convert into a pro western regime. They gambled and right now we're stuck with young men dying.
Did you read what I was responding to? I was pointing out why we got involved in the Middle East in the first place.
Rush is very Pro-Israel
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.