To the editor:
President Bush keeps insisting the mission in Iraq is a "noble cause," over and over again as he attempts to justify his war in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son died in Iraq, is asking the president to meet with her and explain in person exactly what that noble cause is. So far, Mr. Bush has refused to meet with her. Some say he is to busy (vacationing at the ranch), others explain he is the president with more important things to attend to. (Riding bicycles with Lance Armstrong.)
Perhaps there is a simpler, basic reason Mr. Bush refuses to explain what that noble cause really is our children are dying for. He can't, because in truth, there isn't one.
Curtis D. Bennett,
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.
craigers (anonymous) says…
If he met with everybody who had a son or daughter die in the war, then he wouldn't have time to do anything else. I know people are going to ask what he does do, but if he opens the door once, then he must do it for all.
Souki (anonymous) says…
This writer didn't suggest that the president ought to meet with Sheehan -- or with anyone else who seeks an audience. What he suggested was that the president cannot make the case that the "war" is a "noble cause." Because it isn't.
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
"It is now just August and the Army has already met its reenlistment goals for all of 2005."
The Reserves are woefully short on their goals, though. Anyone who is concerned about the defense of our country ought to be alarmed at that.
Art (anonymous) says…
Hey, Arminimus:
Please take a minute to explain to us how your profound support for bombing the hell out of people who never attacked or threatened us, and killing nearly ten thousand Americans and over a hundred thousand Iraqi people has led YOU to support our country. You type a lot, with little regard for truth, but you sound like the administration Chicken Hawks who want everyone else to go fight for them.
(Official death toll "in Iraq" is under 1900 Americans, but Pentagon figures indicate well over 9000 deaths. Most of them don't count because they got them off the ground in a chopper or to Ramstein in Germany before they died, so they aren't "in the war in Iraq" deaths.)
I hear you ran for office and lost 7200 to 50 almost a decade ago? Is that true? Was that your attempt to "serve your country?"
You were probably the perfect age all during the Clinton administration, when you were no doubt loudly and actively supporting your president (because, of course, anything else would be support for the enemy). Did you sign up and do a tour of duty then? Where? What outfit?
And if not, why not?
Did you have "other priorities" like draft dodger Cheney?
Or a boil on your butt that made you unfit for service, like Rush Limbaugh?
Or did you sign up and then desert during wartime like G. W. Bush?
And heck, you're probably still not too old, like I am. If you believe so strongly in this war, why aren't you over there fighting it right now?
Got kids? Are they old enough? Are they over there fighting it? If they're too young, will you promise us you'll make them sign up the minute they're eligible? (No doubt Bush's War will still be there for them.)
mermily (anonymous) says…
let me preface my comment by saying that i normally don't engage in grammatical corrections on a site like this; it isn't what this site is intended for. in fact, i've expressly requested others not do so, but i really would like to clear this one up- not for grammar's sake or to be rude in the least, but b/c it is being misused as a term of art and is offensive to me.
therefore, i submit to you that "objectively pro-terrorist" is incorrectly used. for something to be objectively anything at all, it must be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. the term subjectively, on the other hand, exists specifically to describe something that is particular to a given person.
as it is impossible for those you feel are pro-terrorist to be defined as objectively so (i for one don't share your opinion so it must be personal to you), i'd request for accuracy's sake you not use that term. i request it because using it illustrates, unintentionally i'm sure, how fanatical, closed minded, and stubborn people can become when views different as much as they do around this topic.
instead, let us be receptive to the idea that all sides have valid points and not be marriage to any one idea b/c evidence often changes or is made known to us at varying times. and let us not claim our views are objective when one of the things that makes our ideas interesting is that they are personal. no one need fight for or discuss objective statements; but rather subjective ideas are what people spend lifetimes pondering and discussing.
mermily (anonymous) says…
naturally, i am familiar with orwell. in fact it was based on our shared feelings concerning the power of language that i parted ways with my habit of not commenting on grammar.
i felt orwell was using the term to assert that pacifism functionally results in pro-terrorism to one group in any conflict. that usage of "objectively" is simply having to do with a material object- as you know, one of its definitions. instead, i felt, based on content and sentence structure, you were slipping into using the term to label a side as pro-terrorist.
as you say this is not the case, then my comments on objectivity and my thoughts about open-mindedness stand, but aren't relevant to your usage.
by in large, if we can all get away with not throwing around the term terrorists when talking to each other, that would be gravy, but i might be shooting for the stars. i simply think that if being pro one side necessarily equates anti-another, we could all label each other endlessly. but things are never that black and white and life is not a zero sum game.
respectfully,
emily