|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
When you enlist in the armed forces, at least in the U.S., you stop being a person and become government property. Has nothing to do with W. Bush.
|
Has it been a while since boot camp? It has everything to do with Bush--if you're in the armed forces he's your commander-in-chief!
Right at the top of the chain of command, and yes, RESPONSIBLE. |
Responsible for what? There is no formal ceremony the Army has. Read the article again. |
That's not entirely true. Every service member is entitled to have a military funeral if it is requested. It is their right.
That would include the ceremony for repatriated remains.
This from my husband aka Captain Awesome, US Army. |
Well I was getting my information from the U.S. Army spokesperson, but that then leads us to the question. Was such a funeral requested? It would seem not. In which case my comments about Bush stand.
Notice too that it was the airline which denied the family permission to have members of their son's unit unload his casket. Not the Army and not Bush.
The spokesperson also pointed out that if the Army WAS going to pay its respects that would be at the ACTUAL FUNERAL, not when the body is being unloaded off the airplane. In which case this whole thread is a mistake because people are blaming Bush and the Army for standard procedure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| . In any case, not allowing the unit to organize an honor's guard to welcome the body is disrespectful on so many levels. . |
That was the airline's decision, nothing to do with the Army. As for the honour guard, that (apparently) takes place when the FUNERAL takes place, not when the body comes off the airplane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Pay special attention to Cindy's actual comments about the president |
Like this one, from your link?
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
Cindy has always been against the war. After her son died she was full of grief, as any mother would be, and I think she still is but she is channeling that grief into actions that make sense. There's nothing mysterious about any of this, and in fact it is perfectly logical.
From your other link :
Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
Again, where is the big disconnect people seem to be seeing?
| Quote: |
| BTW hear anything about her lately? |
"Comfort Zones, by Cindy Sheehan. No, I haven't read it.
She also has a book out. Not One More Mother's Child, by Cindy Sheehan.
| Quote: |
| Seems like the left has wisely dropped her. As a few posters on this board pointed out at the time, she is as much a political liability as an asset. |
She's still blogging, writing and speaking - if she is yesterday's news it is because other voices have picked up on her message, a message that polls show is becoming more and more mainstream with every day that goes by. And that was always her goal, to get a message out, not to become a public figure.
The beauty of Cindy is that she does not have to be perfect, and she doesn't have to be right all the time. She doesn't have to be glamourous or elegant or even completely accurate all the time. She only has to be average, which she is, just one more American who is saying stuff a lot of us have been thinking for a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Pay special attention to Cindy's actual comments about the president |
(1) Like this one, from your link?
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
(2) Cindy has always been against the war. After her son died she was full of grief, as any mother would be, and I think she still is but she is channeling that grief into actions that make sense. There's nothing mysterious about any of this, and in fact it is perfectly logical.
From your other link :
Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
Again, where is the big disconnect people seem to be seeing?
| Quote: |
| BTW hear anything about her lately? |
"Comfort Zones, by Cindy Sheehan. No, I haven't read it.
She also has a book out. Not One More Mother's Child, by Cindy Sheehan.
| Quote: |
| Seems like the left has wisely dropped her. As a few posters on this board pointed out at the time, she is as much a political liability as an asset. |
(3) She's still blogging, writing and speaking - if she is yesterday's news it is because other voices have picked up on her message, a message that polls show is becoming more and more mainstream with every day that goes by. And that was always her goal, to get a message out, not to become a public figure.
The beauty of Cindy is that she does not have to be perfect, and she doesn't have to be right all the time. She doesn't have to be glamourous or elegant or even completely accurate all the time. She only has to be average, which she is, just one more American who is saying stuff a lot of us have been thinking for a while. |
(Numbers are mine)
1. Actually I was thinking of these quotes.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."
2. Certainly she was "full of grief" as you say. However the big disconnect is her previous statements as quoted in #1 and her present attitude. She seems to have backed away from her earlier decision not to play politics with her son's death.
3. Maybe so, but it doesn't seem that many people are paying that much attention to her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And at any rate I was talking about the meeting. It is a fact that Cindy changed her attitude about the meeting. At first she was warmly appreciative as her earlier comments show. Now she calls it a "cold meeting where W Bush didn't even have the facts straight"?
At first he was "sincere" and a "man of faith" who made them happy in Cindy's own words.
If he did not have the facts straight at this meeting and was rather cold, how could she have seen him as sincere and made them (albeit briefly) happy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good posts Bobster and Urban Myth. Myth, in answer to your last post, I'd suggest that people aren't usually rational, and this is particularly so with respect to grieving people. We all contradict ourselves, at least sometimes we do.
What I'd really like to know is whether any politically-oriented groups had any back-room conversations with Sheehan, and, furthermore, what exactly may have been said there.
That is, I think we don't have an entirely transparent process with respect to her message and her overall intentions. I realize that we are not going to get this because private citizens and private interest groups don't have to "declassify" dox, so to speak. Most of us who have reservations about Sheehan strongly suspect there's something going on here besides spontaneous protest.
In any case, W. Bush totally blew it by not inviting her in, going out and giving her a hug, or whatever else he could have done to help her deal with her grief.
H.W. Bush blew it in 1992 when he looked at his watch during the debate. W. Bush blew it by not expressing sympathy for Sheehan. True, mothers don't make foreign policy, but she became a high-profile person, and this called for a high-profile response. W. Bush ignored this. It's the Bushes arrogance (or perceived arrogance, but in the end it's the same thing) that sinks them. Just another reason people are inclined to interpret this shipping dead bodies issue in an anti-W. Bush manner.
All of this begs the questions: what idiot is advising W. Bush and why doesn't he fire him, get a new guy, and turn things around or at least try to turn things around? Is he trying to be an unpopular president? Because if he were, I'd certainly advise him to keep doing what he does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Good posts Bobster and Urban Myth. Myth, in answer to your last post, (1) I'd suggest that people aren't usually rational, and this is particularly so with respect to grieving people. We all contradict ourselves, at least sometimes we do.
(2) What I'd really like to know is whether any politically-oriented groups had any back-room conversations with Sheehan, and, furthermore, what exactly may have been said there.
That is, I think we don't have an entirely transparent process with respect to her message and her overall intentions. I realize that we are not going to get this because private citizens and private interest groups don't have to "declassify" dox, so to speak. Most of us who have reservations about Sheehan strongly suspect there's something going on here besides spontaneous protest.
(3) In any case, W. Bush totally blew it by not inviting her in, going out and giving her a hug, or whatever else he could have done to help her deal with her grief.
H.W. Bush blew it in 1992 when he looked at his watch during the debate. W. Bush blew it by not expressing sympathy for Sheehan. True, mothers don't make foreign policy, but she became a high-profile person, and this called for a high-profile response. W. Bush ignored this. It's the Bushes arrogance (or perceived arrogance, but in the end it's the same thing) that sinks them. (4) Just another reason people are inclined to interpret this shipping dead bodies issue in an anti-W. Bush manner.
All of this begs the questions: what idiot is advising W. Bush and why doesn't he fire him, get a new guy, and turn things around or at least try to turn things around? Is he trying to be an unpopular president? Because if he were, I'd certainly advise him to keep doing what he does. |
(numbers are mine)
1. We do contradict ourselves, true...but to such an extreme?
2. It would seem that way.
3. But he DID invite her in once. Is the President of the United States obliged to continually invite in everyone who wants to meet with him.
The man has a country to run. She had her meeting.
4. Again this shipping of dead bodies is standard procedure. There are things Bush can be fairly critizied for, but this is not one of them. I explained why in the above posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
