Laura Bush heckled by mother of dead soldier

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Allegedly. I'm not aware anyone has proved that.

ETA:

"He's also put any drug and alcohol problems behind him, something I give him credit for."

Any drug abuser or alcoholic will tell you that the problem is never behind you. It would seem, though, that he has done pretty well so far.

What I meant to say is that he's gone through many of the steps to try to recover from his problem. I do understand though that these problems are never COMPLETELY behind you.

I give him credit for his effort in the matter.

[Rudey]

So Kerry voted to send us to war in Iraq and then didn't want to fund the soldiers. I think if any mother feels the need to protest someone, they should protest Kerry for not protecting soldiers and not funding the war/follow-up rebuilding.

-Rudey

[HelloKitty22]

Originally posted by Rudey

Again, why don't you question why Kerry's daughters aren't there? Are you somehow jaded that you have to keep bringing up Bush?

And again, this is a war. In a war people die. In a military people volunteer to join. Would you make this argument about any war?? Or did you just randomly pick Iraq?

-Rudey

First, I did question why Kerry's daughters aren't serving. Kerry is a senator, which puts him under the heading of member of Congress. Maybe you should check your own level of jadedness...
Furthermore, I never said Bush killed this woman's son. In fact, nowhere in my comment did I mention anything about who killed him.
What I did say is that certain populations of people are paying a much smaller price for this war. You say that "in a military people volunteer to join," but should that always be true? I personally think that if people (politician and citizens) vote for a war they should have some "skin in the game," so to speak. Charlie Rangel called for a draft when they voted for the Iraq war, specifically because he knew his constituency (which is predominanty minority and often joins the military to get a job and/or obtain money for college) would be paying a disproportionate price for the war.
My point wasn't to specifically chastise a particular person for not going to war, but to raise a philisophical question about a system in which a few people who are insulated from the really painful effects of war are making the decision to go to war.

[wrigley]

I can't begin to understand what hell that mother is going through with coming to terms of the death of her son. Most people don't get involved unless the political becomes personal. During the Vietnam War there were moms who against that war as well. Rudey I think she does accept the fact her son is gone. She doesn't want to remain silent. Let's keep in mind that the 9/11 commission wouldn't have been public if it were not for the actions of the widows from New Jersey who chose not to sit on the sidelines.

If there was a present draft for our armed forces I would think there would be just as many parents, whether or not they are in Congress, trying to get their kids out of serving.

[dekeguy]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
You say that "in a military people volunteer to join," but should that always be true? I personally think that if people (politician and citizens) vote for a war they should have some "skin in the game," so to speak.

a.) uh, yes? are you suggesting that America should require service for some? ridiculous.

b.) you are apparently going to ignore my refutation of this point, so I'll address again: according to statistics, members of congress have 'skin in the game' at the same rate as the average american citizen w/ regard to their children, and a much higher rate with regard to their own personal service. what now, SIATS not withstanding?

ETA: Also, dekeguy's point is made beautifully, and is a very strong argument as well - nicely done.

[Rudey]

Read the post by K Sig RC above where he addresses your inaccurate statements.

And again, people would go to war in the military. You are trying to make 2 issues into one. If this is an issue about who joins the military (read K Sig RC's post above) then it has nothing to do with us going to war and this mother's son dying. It seems that when someone knocks your argument you back off and make it into a different issue - here you're trying to make it into an issue of certain people going to join the army more.

-Rudey

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
First, I did question why Kerry's daughters aren't serving. Kerry is a senator, which puts him under the heading of member of Congress. Maybe you should check your own level of jadedness...
Furthermore, I never said Bush killed this woman's son. In fact, nowhere in my comment did I mention anything about who killed him.
What I did say is that certain populations of people are paying a much smaller price for this war. You say that "in a military people volunteer to join," but should that always be true? I personally think that if people (politician and citizens) vote for a war they should have some "skin in the game," so to speak. Charlie Rangel called for a draft when they voted for the Iraq war, specifically because he knew his constituency (which is predominanty minority and often joins the military to get a job and/or obtain money for college) would be paying a disproportionate price for the war.
My point wasn't to specifically chastise a particular person for not going to war, but to raise a philisophical question about a system in which a few people who are insulated from the really painful effects of war are making the decision to go to war.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSig RC
a.) uh, yes? are you suggesting that America should require service for some? ridiculous.

Not arguing with your logic or the tone of your response, but I grew up with the draft. Not so ridiculous -- it's been done.

Before anyone asks, I'm not in favor of reinstating the draft unless things get a lot worse. Our all voluntary armed forces have done a magnificent job, and the level of education and professionalism has never been greater.

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by Rudey
So Kerry voted to send us to war in Iraq and then didn't want to fund the soldiers. I think if any mother feels the need to protest someone, they should protest Kerry for not protecting soldiers and not funding the war/follow-up rebuilding.

-Rudey

Didn't the funding pass even without his vote? If it did, Kerry voting against it would have no effect on deaths in Iraq.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Not arguing with your logic or the tone of your response, but I grew up with the draft. Not so ridiculous -- it's been done.

Before anyone asks, I'm not in favor of reinstating the draft unless things get a lot worse. Our all voluntary armed forces have done a magnificent job, and the level of education and professionalism has never been greater.

My point was that comparing some sort of vague socioeconomic 'indenturement' of lower-class, lower-income, lower-education, or minority Americans to the draft is ridiculous, and anyone promoting the draft on the basis of supposedly alleviating those (vague, flightly, weightless) concerns is even more ridiculous.

Feel me a little more now? Although far to young to experience the draft, I don't want to take away from its impact on generations of Americans, that's for damn sure.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSig RC
My point was that comparing some sort of vague socioeconomic 'indenturement' of lower-class, lower-income, lower-education, or minority Americans to the draft is ridiculous, and anyone promoting the draft on the basis of supposedly alleviating those (vague, flightly, weightless) concerns is even more ridiculous.

Oh, I don't think you're trying to belittle its impact, but what's interesting is that you've very eloquently described much of what the draft was. Of course there were some middle class grunts -- and even some college grads -- but the average draftee in Vietnam was 19 years old, likely a minority member with a high school diploma or less. (I remember those stats -- wish I could cite specifically where from)

If there ever is a draft again (and I hope there never will be), we need to do it a lot better.