A Lawrence couple joined the anti-war protest at President Bush's Texas ranch over the weekend.
Allan and Louise Hanson, longtime members of the Lawrence Coalition for Peace & Justice, joined a rally led by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier who died in Iraq. Sheehan has vowed to maintain a vigil at Bush's ranch until the president meets with her.
Allan Hanson said nearly 800 people attended the rally. He said Sheehan is a "fresh symbol" for the anti-war movement.
"I agree with her that we were brought into this war under false pretenses, that it is an unnecessary war and an unjust war," he said.
Supporters of the war have criticized Cindy Sheehan, noting she met Bush on an earlier occasion and failed to express her concerns then.
The Hansons told about their trip Monday night at an anti-war rally in Lawrence.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
i wonder if they were there when Sheehan got divorce papers from her husband.
Jean1183 (anonymous) says…
Great post Arminius.
Now, I demand to meet with President Bush!!! My son was in Iraq for 13 months. I want to tell President Bush what a fine job our soldiers are doing there.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Arminius, those 5 reasons are valid excuses to remove Saddam from power, but they are not valid excuses for going to war. Besides, wasn't Bush's #1 reason for war in Iraq to destroy their "weapons of mass destruction"?
Cindy Sheehan has lost her son. I find it disturbing that there are people who are protesting her, and I find it disgusting that some of those protestors are drving their trucks over the makeshift white crosses that Sheehan and others have placed to honor the dead.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
First of all, Irag did not have those so-called weapons of mass destruction. That is a given.
Second, do you really think war is the only option? Surely there must be at least one option that falls somewhere in between war and saying "pretty please." If world leaders are unable to use this reasoning, we're all screwed.
Third, the conservative Right has some nerve to accuse others---especially a grieving mother---of outrageous rhetoric, lies, and extremism (e.g., see "weapons of mass destruction" above). How about showing a little compassion? Isn't that what "compassionate conservatism" is all about?
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Jean1183- Would you be this happy if your son turned out like Sheehan's son? You would most likely say "yes", but you'll never know since your son is alive. It is easy to be super happy with the outcome when your son is in one piece. I'm proud of the troops, too, since they have been enduring chaos at the hands of a mindless leader.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
1. My intention is not to discuss the mythical WMD, for it is not the topic of this story. As a parting note, then: The people you mention above who believed that Saddam had WMD did so because they had faulty information. On the flipside, former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter claimed that Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed of any WMD by 1998 and that Iraq represented zero threat to America and its allies from 1998 onward.
2. If I knew the answer, I'd gladly share it with Shrubby and others. I don't know much about foreign policy, but I do know that war and violence are never acceptable.
3. Pro-terrorist? Come on. That term is becoming an all-too-common label for anyone who dares stand up to the Shrub. His administration has effectively kept the American public in a perpetual state of alarm, fear, and paranoia. The fear pacifies the population, promoting mindless patriotism and obedience and helping justify repressive policies that curtail democratic freedoms and boost centralized power.
Bottom line: Cindy Sheehan's son was killed, and she's mad as hell. She's not a terrorist. She's not an anarchist. She's simply a grieving mother who demands an explanation.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
1. Faulty information turned to lies when Bush and Co. realized that there weren't any WMD but reassured the public that there were some to be found. But then that wasn't the real reason why the US invaded Iraq in the first place, was it? Hadn't Bush and his minions been looking for an excuse---any excuse---to get in there and topple Saddam? And it wasn't to establish a peaceful, democratic society. Hell no. If that were the case, there are other countries in much more dire situations than Iraq; why not remove their dictators, too? Bush is more interested in securing oil and pleasing his (and his father's) oil buddies.
2. You're darn right I oppose the war in Afghanistan. Where's Osama? What do we have to show for it? Besides, do you truly believe that a US invasion has done anything to silence any terrorist organization? Killing their people isn't going to make them see the error of their ways; it's going to make them much angrier and much more dangerous than ever before. Again, I'm not a politician, so I don't know how I would've handled the situation. That's what the UN is for.
3. George Orwell? Oh my. Does that mean four legs good, two legs bad? The notion of constructing a mammoth war machine just to feel safe is a product of ignorance and fear. Look at where it's got us. The US has not only the mightiest military in the world (or is it China?) but also one of the shadiest reputations in the eyes of myriad countries. Our strong-arm bullying has made us the target of those who despise us. Their terrorists have stuck fear in our population, but it is Bush who has kept that fear alive in order to justify his troops' presence in Iraq (the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks is a whole other story).
I don't understand why some people in this country become so upset and combative (literally) when the idea of a government overhaul is mentioned. You live in a country where the government jumps at the chance to use brute force, provides unaffordable health care, glorifies athletes but pays teachers crap, cuts assistance programs for the poor, has a sky-high crime rate, denies equal rights to minorities, etc. Don't you think that the government deserves at least a little tweaking?
jstevens1979 (anonymous) says…
this women is a disgrace. Her son joined the military which beleive it or not can run the risk of actually going to war and dying for what you beleive in. go home lady!
jstevens1979 (anonymous) says…
Woman Sorry
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
How easy it is to shame someone when you have absolutely no idea what she's going through.
jstevens1979 (anonymous) says…
this is not about shame. she has made her point. now she needs to go home and appreciate what her son did for this country
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
But you said that she's a disgrace. Isn't that shaming her?
Conservatives get so irate whenever someone stands up to Bush that it's frightening.
jstevens1979 (anonymous) says…
I oppose this war so dont even try to label me. It is a disgrace that this woman choses to honor her sons sacrifice in this way.
jstevens1979 (anonymous) says…
I also oppose Bush in a huge way. But we are Americans so we must finish what we start and give the people of Iraq what they deserve.
jstevens1979 (anonymous) says…
Casey Sheehan should be remembered as a hero and not a victim.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Sorry for calling you a conservative, jstevens1979. I guess that was a little harsh!
I'm not even going to try to get into Cindy Sheehan's head; I don't know how she thinks or what her line of reasoning is. But if I were to guess, I would assume that she supported her son, even though she may have been against the war. Perhaps she was extremely proud of him because he chose to fight for what he believed in. However, when he was killed, the awful reality hit home. People have said that a parent losing a child is probably the worst thing that could ever happen to somebody. Do you expect every mother and father who loses a child in a war to handle their loss with a stiff jaw and a salute to the flag?
The US will never be able to finish what they started in Iraq; they need to exit as soon as possible. And what exactly do the Iraqi people deserve? Civil war? Chaos? Are they really better off now?
jstevens1979 (anonymous) says…
They deserve justice and freedom just like everyone else in this world. And yes we will finish what we started. That much is a promise. No I dont expect people who lose loved ones in conflict to have the same patriotism they once had they should just be glad they are not the ones living in Iraq.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Yes, everyone deserves justice and freedom. But waging war to create peace doesn't work. But let's say that it does work. If so, why doesn't the US flex its military muscle and dispense justice and freedom in other Middle East countries, Africa, southeast Asia, Central America, and so on? Saddam wasn't the only dictator in the world. What makes Iraq special? Terrorists? Nope. Weapons of mass destruction? Nuh-uh. "Black gold"..."Texas tea"? Perhaps.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Oh, Arminius,
1. I'm sure almost every country has terrorists. But Bush was supposed to go after the terrorists' leader responsible for 9-11: Osama. I'm sure Bush wasn't thinking about Zarqawi, Abu Nidal, or Ansar al-Islam at the time. He sent the troops to Afghanistan because that's where Osama was. Then, for some reason, Bush had us think that Saddam was our main target. Saddam was captured. Alright. But Osama is still hiking in the mountains. Terrorist groups are still training kids to hate the US. Mission accomplished? Not by a long shot.
2. Driving my neighbor to Lawrence Memorial Hospital and dropping bombs on Iraqi villages are slightly different scenarios. Slightly.
3. My theory of the Phantom Menace, a.k.a., the WMD? Simple: I don't know what happened to them, and frankly that's not important. What is important is that they're not there. Therefore, if the main mission was to destroy them, then I guess the mission is over.
4. I'm not talking about the Philippines. I'm talking about Iraq. If you deny that oil doesn't have even the tiniest bit of importance in this war, you don't know much about the Bushes.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Now, wait a minute. The Constitution guarantees freedoms of speech, religion, and so forth. The United States has a long history (going back to the Revolutionary War) of accommodating pacifists whose beliefs were founded in their religion. We have a history of welcoming as political refugees thoses Christian pacifists who were oppressed by European rulers (the Russian Tsar, for example). The free exercise of religion would seem to accommodate religiously motivated pacifism, yes? The freedoms of speech and to petition the government would seem to allow Ms. Sheehan the right to protest, yes? And the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces would seem to allow him to select and attack military targets. Congress's role in providing for the common defence (to use the Founding Fathers' spelling) seems to allow the Congressional delegations to vote in favor or opposition to the President's defense priorities--including selection and attack of the afore-mentioned military targets. If they believe the President has acted inappropriately, they may impeach him. If the U.S. citizens believe that the Congress-persons have voted in favor of the President's actions inappropriately, they may vote against those Congress-persons in the next election.
So what're we arguin' about? Ms. Sheehan is within her Constitutional rights, pacifists are within their Constitutional rights, and anyone upset with the war is within their Constitutional rights to vote the bums out. So a little tolerance, here, would be appropriate.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Well put, Wilbur_Nether.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
No argument that Ms. Sheehan's position is subject to criticism--but her position is not being criticized so much as she is being vilified.
Speaking of outrageous rhetoric, I wouldn't put any more credence in the "Socialist Worker" link co-opting her comments for its own purposes than I would it suggesting that the FBI is a brutal and thuggish organization. The website, and its content, are propoganda for a political party. Look at it skeptically, no matter how "reasonable" its claims seem. One purpose of rhetoric is to make one's claims seem reasonable, even when they are not.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
This can go on forever....
1. I don't suggest that we "fight" any perceived threats. There are other ways to deal with conflicts rather than going to war. Honestly, the US has relied too much upon its brawn and not its brain.
2. Cute. I'm fully aware of what an analogy is. I was simply taken aback by how odd yours was. I suppose some people will go to great lengths to assign reason to killing others.
3. Sure, go ahead and suggest it. It won't make any difference, though. He lied.
4. I didn't suggest that the US exerts force only in areas with oil. I suggested that oil is a primary reason why the US is exerting force in Iraq.
Face it, Bush has got us in a giant, awful quagmire. His approval rating is dropping as fast as the Royals' winning percentage. People are dying, and Bush refuses to withdraw the troops until peace and order come to Iraq. Is that realistic? Is it worth having our sons and daughters killed?
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
1. I've said it several times before, so this will be the last time: I am not a student of foreign policy or a politician. I'm honored that you'd think of me as a Counterterrorism Czar, but I'd rather leave that up to someone who can prove him- or herself to be a great leader on the subject. However, I don't have to be a Czar to realize that war and violence should not be excusable.
2. Because your method of removing a dictator involves war.
3. Bush and everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Bush invaded Iraq. Bush found no WMD. Bush reassured the world that Iraq does, indeed, have WMD somewhere. Therefore, Bush lied.
4. Because Bush and his daddy are buds with the Saudi royal family. And if you read my earliest post again, you'll see that I say your 5 reasons may be valid excuses to remove Saddam, but they are not valid excuses for going to war. And Bush and company probably didn't have that list of excuses infront of them when the troops entered Iraq. Oil isn't on the list because it isn't a valid excuse. Yet that doesn't seem to matter.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
1. I said I'm honored that you WOULD think of me as a Counterterrorism Czar. And if you suspect I'm not an expert on foreign policy, then stop asking me to be one. It would be like me asking you to think like a Democrat campaign manager.
2. See #1 above.
3. Maybe Clinton lied, who knows? But he didn't send American troops into Iraq and create thousands of grieving mothers, fathers, siblings, and widows as a result of that lie.
4. Talk about naive. Keep on thinking that Bush based his invasion solely on those 5 reasons and not at least partly on oil.
As for me, if my values of nonviolence, peace, and rational thought make me naive, then so be it. And just because I don't attach hyperlinks that no one will read doesn't mean I'm uninformed.
Look, this is going nowhere and is starting to get nasty. We're both obviously going to stick to our own views, and nothing will change. So I'm going to go back to my life now. Thanks for the debate---it was actually quite entertaining.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
I don't have to know about foreign policy to know that war is wrong. Knowing that war and violence are wrong should not exclude anyone from pointing it out to people who are trigger happy and easily resort to war or violence when they don't have the patience to reasonably think things through and consider the consequences of their actions.
Thanks for the free history lessons, but all of your regurgitated news snippets don't change the fact that Bush has America involved in an extremely unpopular war where parents and widows of soldiers who were killed demand an explanation. Bush's motives are unclear, the situation in Iraq isn't pretty, Osama is still on the loose...hell, if I were a parent of a soldier, I'd demand an explanation from Bush. Try convincing a grieving family member to learn about US foreign policy vis-a-vis Iraq prior to 2001 and see if that helps alleviate the pain. Good luck.
I admit that I don't leaf through press transcripts every day or watch nothing but Fox News, but that doesn't mean I'm uninformed. And for you to imply that I'm dishonest is uncalled for; however, from the tone of your previous entries, I knew it was only a matter of time before it happened. Try to drop the smugness and adopt an ounce of compassion for those like Cindy Sheehan who are trying to make sense out of something that seems ridiculous.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
That will do absolutely nothing to ease the pain of a mother's loss, regardless of what conservatives say.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
People deal with losses in different ways. I wish all grieving parents could be like the Sullivans; however, that's unrealistic. Especially with this war, which, unlike WWII, has unclear motives.
Whether Sheehan is acting in accordance with her late son's wishes is not the point. Sheehan has every right in the world to protest Bush and his war. If such an action wouldn't go over well with her son, then that's a Sheehan family matter. Maybe, as time passes, Cindy Sheehan will change her mind and take comfort in the fact that her son died for what he believed in. But right now she's pissed off and is exercising her constitutional right. She might not be exercising this right with people who have ideas that you accept, but that's her right, too.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says…
Ah, but it HAS become Bush's war. And you don't think that continuing to kill Iraqi people---some of them innocent women and children---is an even bigger recruiting tool for al Qaeda? No one is going to "win" this war.
Yet let's focus on the issue at hand here: Does Cindy Sheehan have a right to protest Bush?
Absolutely.
Jean1183 (anonymous) says…
It's probably too late for Confrontation to read this but......
I never said I was "happy". I was implying that it's ridiculous to demand to meet with the President to voice your opinion. Don't you think he knows that we all have an opinion??? Should we ALL be able to meet with him every time our opinion changes?
smitty (anonymous) says…
Perhaps the Hansons can explain how it is that the Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice ALWAYS takes a stand on international and national issues but NEVER takes a public stand on issues in their own community. This is why I never joined LCPJ.