Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty22
I'm sorry but no matter how patriotic you are or how much this country and its military honors the death of one of its soldiers who dies in battle, to a mother who has lost her son the death is just as painful as if he was killed here in a car accident or in a violent crime. There is little comfort in the "honor" of his death. Moreover, I find nothing dishonorable in the way in which this woman has acted. She is exercising the exact freedom her son fought to protect!!!
While you may not agree with the way this particular mother chose to exercise her first amendment rights, her actions are not "grossly innappropriate." The most fundamental cornerstone of the first amendment is that we should be able to question our political leaders. Mrs. Bush is campaigning for her husband and therefore is open to protests and questioning because she is choosing to make speeches and campaign for votes in a political campaign.
Furthermore, everyone seems to be avoiding the point of the mother's protest. Why aren't the children of members of congress serving in this war? Why aren't Mr. and Mrs. Bush sending their daughters to serve in the military? The political leaders of this country spend a tremendous amount of time telling us how important the war is and how we must sacrifice both financially and emotionally to send our sons and daughters oversees to win this war, yet only one member of Congress has made the ultimate sacrifice and sent a child to Iraq. If this war is so important to our safety and our survival as a nation, why aren't George and Laura sending Jenna and Barbara over there to fight??
|
=====================
Since you demand that I recognize the First Amendment rights of the woman in question then I expect that you will recognize mine as well. That being the case, I stand by my comments. I consider her actions to be trading on the death of her son to make a preposterous point, ignoring the fact that her son was a serving officer who was in the Army by his choice and who was killed by a cowardly terrorist. While I would gladly fight to defend her right to make a political statement I am appalled at the context in which she expresses that statement. Tacky!
Since you seem to be sensitive to issues of freedom and constitutionally guaranteed rights, might I suggest that you consider that the American military is a volunteer service and that members of congress can't SEND their children into the service. That decision belongs to the young fellow who is going to be at the pointed end of the stick. Same goes for the President and the First Lady, they can't SEND their kids anymore than my Godmother could send me (she is a retired multi term member of congress, and a liberal Democrat, and she is very proud that members (plural) of her family and close associates have served, are serving, and will continue to do so).
As to the notion that only the poor who lack money and connections end up fighting this war, I refer you to one of my early posts from "in country" where I described the demographic make up of my outfit. It was a remarkable cross section of American society.
My comments are not intended to interfere with anyone's RIGHT to make political statements but rather to object to anyone's lack of DISCRETION in choosing when and how to do so. The death of one's son seems a poor occasion to make partisan points.
Threaded Mode