Grief
The more I read about these "Crusaders" who are camping outside of President Bush's ranch in Texas, the more I wish Bush would just go out there and tell them flat out: Your son/daughter died in Iraq because she believed that freedom is something that must be fought for. (s)he enlisted fully knowing that he might die in the line of duty. It is in the interest of Freedom that he gave his life. I know President Bush is not going to come out and say that because it would just fuel the fire of the Anti-War Crusaders. Their problem is, their crusade is not a just one. Their crusade is selfish. Trying to make the president guilty about sending their sons and daughters off to fight a war that, in their minds, is another "No-Win war".
If you go through and search for Cindy Sheehan on the web you will be able to find a lot of sites and articles that you can read and kind of get into the thoughts of the idea or movement, which is something I try to do when I write posts such as these. In one writing I found of hers she calls the Government "socio-pathic maniacs" and says we need to take back the country from them. I think she is the maniac. She is the epitome of most of the Democratic party. For instance, in her little article, which is linked above, she talks about the Terri Schiavo case. She says "However, I have one question for Congress and for George Bush, though: Why does Terry Schiavo deserve to live more than my son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan? Casey was misused and abused by his Commander-in-Chief and executive branch that boldly lied to the American public and the less gullible citizens of other countries about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq." MORON ALERT! Schiavo has no more "Right" to life than her son. Her son has the right to enlist, yada yada we covered this already.
What we have not covered is Bush's thought process when he sent the troops out.
We will start with the intelligence from the US, and other countries that said Saddam Hussein, then dictator of Iraq, was building WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and that he was going to use them on the US. I think the best logic for making a decision about what do would best be thought of this way(link to the actual article by Walter Williams who came up with this Idea). There are two errors, Type 1 and Type 2. Here are some examples
Type 2: We get intelligence that Saddam is building WMDs and might have them. We do nothing. Turns out Saddam has WMDs. Saddam fires Nukes, Bio-Chem weapons and everything he has at the US. We suffer mass casualties.
Type 1: We get intelligence that Saddam is building WMDs and might have them. We send in the Armed Forces and take him out. Turns out, after the fact, Saddam did not have any WMDs like we thought. The country is safe.
Which would you pick?
If you go through and search for Cindy Sheehan on the web you will be able to find a lot of sites and articles that you can read and kind of get into the thoughts of the idea or movement, which is something I try to do when I write posts such as these. In one writing I found of hers she calls the Government "socio-pathic maniacs" and says we need to take back the country from them. I think she is the maniac. She is the epitome of most of the Democratic party. For instance, in her little article, which is linked above, she talks about the Terri Schiavo case. She says "However, I have one question for Congress and for George Bush, though: Why does Terry Schiavo deserve to live more than my son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan? Casey was misused and abused by his Commander-in-Chief and executive branch that boldly lied to the American public and the less gullible citizens of other countries about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq." MORON ALERT! Schiavo has no more "Right" to life than her son. Her son has the right to enlist, yada yada we covered this already.
What we have not covered is Bush's thought process when he sent the troops out.
We will start with the intelligence from the US, and other countries that said Saddam Hussein, then dictator of Iraq, was building WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and that he was going to use them on the US. I think the best logic for making a decision about what do would best be thought of this way(link to the actual article by Walter Williams who came up with this Idea). There are two errors, Type 1 and Type 2. Here are some examples
Type 2: We get intelligence that Saddam is building WMDs and might have them. We do nothing. Turns out Saddam has WMDs. Saddam fires Nukes, Bio-Chem weapons and everything he has at the US. We suffer mass casualties.
Type 1: We get intelligence that Saddam is building WMDs and might have them. We send in the Armed Forces and take him out. Turns out, after the fact, Saddam did not have any WMDs like we thought. The country is safe.
Which would you pick?

