Meet Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Sheehan is the mother of Casey, killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004.
Ms. Sheehan talked to presidential aides this weekend and unlike a White House Press Corps member, she didn't say "thank you for treating me like an idiot."
"They said the president really believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Sheehan added. "And I told them: 'I might be a grieving mom, but you men are very intelligent, and I know you don't believe what you're telling me.'"
We don't either Ms. Sheehan. The face of a grieving mother is too much to bear. If you are out in the area, stop by and offer condolences on behalf of the nation and maybe a refreshing Aquafina.
She probably thinks the same as you--war machine, suspect glory--which still makes it a bad reason to send in the so-called "volunteer" army. It's well-documented that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield wanted to invade BEFORE Sept. 11, that the idea of remaking Iraq has been a pet project for years. The New Yorker broke this story last year--that the plan to invade Iraq had been on the table for a long time and Sept. 11 and "the global war on terror" turned up as an ideal way to sell it. Since we are now losing the "global war on terror," it has been rhetorically downgraded to "a struggle against violent extremists" (the ranks of which are swelling because of mistakes in American foreign policy). This sudden shift to it's-not-really-a-war has occurred since the London subway bombs. I'm glad I didn't lose a son to muddled thinking and rhetorical shifts. Say what you will about other administrations and what they knew or didn't, they used diplomacy to better effect. If there was a time to go to war with Iraq it was before the war with Afghanistan, which is failing as well; it was years ago, when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Genocide is a reason to go to war. Wanting to be remembered for rearranging someone else's geopolitics is not.
Seems like Barbara Radnofsky might want to mosey over to Crawford to bring Ms. Sheehan some refreshments and learn first hand about how the Bush Administration policies, as endorsed carte blanche by her opponent, effect real people.
Can anyone say photo op?
I guess I should post my brilliant ideas like that directly on her web site, but I'm too lazy. Could someone just tell her to look here and read this.
"...it has been rhetorically downgraded to "a struggle against violent extremists..."
Bush recently set the record straight on that, officially backing the "war on terror" label instead. It's kind of like "Coke" and "New Coke", the second of which sucks, and the first of which is only good with a lot of rum.
If you don't think we invaded Iraq because of WMD's, then why? And please don't say "oil" - I would, however, suspect glory, legacy, war-machine, Israel or other such excuses.
And, by the way, Clinton thought there were WMD's too - along with France, Great Britain, Russia, China, and most of the world as well. It is possible that sicko Saddam WANTED people to THINK he had them to keep everyone (including his arch enemy Iran) at bay. I think the argument should be that we should have let the inspectors continue and/or give diplomacy more of a chance.