In the News

I'm sorry, did somebody actually go down there and take a look-see? Looks to me like they quoted from the Statesman. Anyhow, for a blog that is "not a calendar of upcoming events," there sure are a lot of other upcoming events listed.

Dan-O, what is wrong with posting about events after they happened? Taking a look-see, talking about it, exploring the issues, etc? This is a blog about Austin, not a calendar of upcoming events.

Dan, we're actually hiring an event scout, and it pays really well.....just as much as we writers get paid! And as truecraig has said, you get to use the company car whenever you want!

No, you're right, we should have posted something before it happened. But, posting about it got a lot of readers talking about important things. This is actually what the comments are intended for. It's nice to see them be used properly and hopefully it will continue.

Thanks much Austinist. Appreciate your posting about an event people might find important to attend *after* it happened. Lemme know when your band plays.

Paaco --

I don't think it's surprising that having a child killed in action would shake someone's opinions up and make them question the validity of a war that the rest of the world is questioning. I don't think it's that surprising that a mother with a child fighting in such a war would be less likely to protest in fear that it could come across as not "supporting" her son. Cindy's son "signed up" to go himself, but that doesn't mean that he (and the rest of the country) wasn't lied to and fooled about the purpose of the war. People who "signed up" to fight in Iraq did so on the basis of a lie. How many soundclips can you find of Bush saying the purpose of the war was to find and destroy WMD? It's only in the aftermath that he's invented this "freeing the Iraqi people" (while killing 1000s of innocent citizens) thing.

I think it's pretty sad to see the extreme reactions some people have to this grieving mother questioning the purpose of her son's death. That doesn't seem like something that makes her an evil bitch or a "liar" or any of the other things that people call her. She's just trying to make her son's death mean something more than it does if he was fighting in an unjust war.

That's my piece.

Sheehan is ridiculous. Other mothers are handling their losses with a more respectable response. Yes, by all means protest. I don't agree with what is going on. But, do not protest on the basis that your son was killed even though he signed up to go himself. Sheehan's family has said they don't agree with what she is doing and they do not want any part of it. Other protestors do not agree with Sheehan, too. I really liked what one man said while he was protesting in Crawford. He commented that he was being pro-active and not re-active. He is protesting and his son is currently serving in Iraq. Did Sheehan protest the ethics of this war before her son died? No.

True enough, Lisa. I didn’t mean to suggest that Sheehan or anyone else was of that ilk. Who obviously comes to mind is Michael Moore. Farenheit 9/11 did touch on some strong arguments against the war (i.e. – why it is unjust), but they were overshadowed by his sensationalization of a grieving mother (see above) and the fact the he focused on military recruiters preying on the poor and disadvantaged (true and sad, but that is the case in war and peacetime and not unique to this administration or any other). I hate it when vocal critics use weak and/or sensational arguments to bolster positions that I agree with. This war is wrong. Some things *are* worth fighting and dying for, but not Haliburton.

e- Agreed.

I think those of us who oppose the war haven't done a stellar job of demonstrating that we respect and honor the sacrifices made by those who serve. I think they should have all the armor they can carry. I think they shouldn't have their cars reposessed while they're fighting in Iraq. They should get generous benefits for their families and for themselves when they get home. And a parade.

But only on the condition that everybody agrees that it's in honor of their personal sacrifice, and NOT in honor of the fools in charge who've squandered it.

The honor-the-troops-but-hate-the-administration position has been a very tricky position for me to maintain. Like when I'm discussing the war with guys who've served in Iraq, but still think Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Who the hell am I to argue with a guy who's been through all that? I tend to just change the subject when talking to these individuals.

I would like to know- How do you point out that somebody has been so horribly misled about something so serious, and at the same time maintain their dignity?

Well said, Edward:)

And despite the evidence in the above entry, I can write a grammatically correct sentence---or at least one that comes close. Sorry.

Edward: I think you are exactly right. And I think if you look at the message of Cindy Sheehan and the others involved in the protest in Crawford, they agree with you as well. They are asking Bush to explain "the noble cause" for which these people died. They aren't saying that no soldier should ever die in war; they are saying that no more soldiers should die for an unjust war.

Unfortunately, as much as pro-peacers---or, at least, us moderates----would like to explain what you said above. But a lefty wonk with a detailed, nuanced argument isn't likely to make the front page of the newspaper. A grieving mom will.

It’s upsetting when some Iraq war critics parade around mothers distraught over the loss of their sons/daughters in the military to tug on the emotional heart strings and as one of their arguments to “prove” that the Iraq war is wrong. As tragic as it is, military personnel die in war. Tens of thousands of American soldiers died in WWII. Few would argue that we should have either not entered or pulled out of that war and let the Nazi regime dominate the world just because members of our military were dying. When they sign up for service, the members of our military know that it is a dangerous job and they may be called to war and in fact die in the service of their country. In return, they expect and it is the duty and moral obligation of our government to put those men and women in harms way only when absolutely necessary and only for a just and winnable cause. It isn’t the fact that members of military are dying in a war that is outrageous, it is the fact that the Iraq war exists and people are dying, military and civilian, only to further the personal and political agendas of Bush et al and not for any identifiably “just” reason that is reprehensible and the true outrage. A subtle distinction, but one worth pointing out.

Having a son who is MIA (rather than having a son killed in action) is probalby a strong motivator to want the US to continue involvment in the conflict. Carolyn Maupin's son has a much better chance of being rescued as long as other people's kids are still risking their lives over there. If we pull out, she loses hope. My cynical side says that's the primary reason she doesn't hold the Bush administration responsible for the needless loss of her son. If I were a cynical hawk, I'd suggest we let more soldiers go MIA in order to keep their mothers from spoiling my record-breaking vacation time.

In a just world, Barbara Bush would have camped out in front of President Nixon's vacatation hideaway back in the 70's.

Thanks for posting another viewpoint, porkpolis. It's interesting to see how parents of soldiers view the war, especially those who have lost a son or daughter. Some people feel leaving now would mean their children lost their lives for nothing. Others think they don't want any more to die for the "cause" It'd be interesting to get some reader comments on that.

Carolyn Maupin offers us some contrast to Ms. Sheehan.

From CNN.com:

"In a memo dated February 7, 2003, three senior [Department of State] officials -- noting the U.S. Central Command's focus on military objectives and reluctance to take on policing roles -- warned that 'a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally.'"

How much more evidence do these people need that the Bush Administration has caused the violence and is providing terrorists with the best recruiting tool ever?

And to answer the question about Cindy Sheehan: She and several other families met with President Bush about a year ago. It was a carefully orchestrated PR event for Bush to prove how "compassionate" he is.

According to Sheehan: "He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."

Also, on a factual note, Cindy is a founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. There is also a group called Gold Star Families. The media has been abbreviating the name of the group to just Gold Star Families, which may be causing some of the confusion.

I'm not sure if they met earlier or not...anyone? anyone?

Mr. Sager's comment does come across as insensitive to the needs of a grieving mother, and on a larger scale, a grieving (and growing) portion of the US population. It is not surprising that the same mouths that claimed we would be leaving Iraq/Afghanistan in quick time, are now irritated that anyone brings up that promise. Ah, the economies of war...

Not to agree with Bush & Co. or anything, but didn't Sheehan already meet with the president, earlier this year? I swear I read that somewhere.