The pithily titled Midwest Towns Sour on War as Their Toll Mounts provides some brief but intimate portraits of small-town folks coming to grips with the fact that the scion’s of their communities are coming home dead from an adventure they supported and even encouraged.
Retired electrician Bob Peck voted twice for Bush […] Peck would not vote for him again, even if he could.
Woody Marshall, a Vietnam War-era Navy veteran, described his own evolution as he trained his gaze on an elegantly stitched tapestry of a smiling Aaron Sissel in a VFW corridor. At first, he was "thrilled" that U.S.-led troops toppled Saddam Hussein and his tyrannical government.
(snip)
Like so many Tipton residents who saw the war delivered like an unwelcome package when the cortege passed, Pelzer realized that it took her son's death for her to focus on the war.
So where’s the counterpoint in this article, the “balance” we expect?
Where, for instance, is GOP representative Ann Coulter’s typical grief-counselor perspective? Strangely absent it seems.
How about a quote from the most famous war-widow in the US, Cindy Sheehan? Or the next-most famous, Mrs. Tillman?
There’s no mention of any effort to contact them for their view—perhaps the apparent reticence is due the intimate focus of the article and to introduce such “celebrities” into the story might detract from its essential tale.
The six weeks since have been a fog, she [Dixie Pelzer] said, an initiation into a parallel world occupied by the families of the 3,611 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq.
How about some quotes from those parents of the 3,611 who were actually opposed to the war-- not just from fear for their own sons and daughters lives but also from fear of the larger meaning and consequences of Bush’s and the Republican’s rabid and predictably destructive policies?
There is no time or column inches for them apparently; perhaps they aren’t victims the way these grieving staunch, twice-voting, moral, god-fearing family-values Republicans are.
No, there’s no sympathy for the anti-family, pro-abortion, homosexual-loving, tree-hugging, liberal, Democrat, immoral god-haters who opposed the war from the beginning and were branded traitors and lunatics by those who now bury their blind, bloodied and ignorant faith in the ground and weep over the bitter harvest they have sown.
Our sympathies should be with them for their personal loss, and they always have been from the beginning. But from them, to those liberal Democrat strangers who feared for others lives and railed in opposition of their likely waste have been called traitors and ghouls delighting in death by the champions of war and yet it seems no sympathy for the victimization of sage oppnents even now. is worthy of record.
Even now it seems there’s still no sympathy for the humanistic, altruistic, liberal “Devil”.
NOTE: I appreciate there are technical editorial contsraints on any story, but has anyone yet seen an MSM article or report anywhere that sympathetically adresses the pains of those who have lost their sons and daughters for a cause they knew was false but suffered the same sacrifice (or perhaps worse), despite their vehement oppostion?
Retired electrician Bob Peck voted twice for Bush […] Peck would not vote for him again, even if he could.
Woody Marshall, a Vietnam War-era Navy veteran, described his own evolution as he trained his gaze on an elegantly stitched tapestry of a smiling Aaron Sissel in a VFW corridor. At first, he was "thrilled" that U.S.-led troops toppled Saddam Hussein and his tyrannical government.
(snip)
Like so many Tipton residents who saw the war delivered like an unwelcome package when the cortege passed, Pelzer realized that it took her son's death for her to focus on the war.
So where’s the counterpoint in this article, the “balance” we expect?
Where, for instance, is GOP representative Ann Coulter’s typical grief-counselor perspective? Strangely absent it seems.
How about a quote from the most famous war-widow in the US, Cindy Sheehan? Or the next-most famous, Mrs. Tillman?
There’s no mention of any effort to contact them for their view—perhaps the apparent reticence is due the intimate focus of the article and to introduce such “celebrities” into the story might detract from its essential tale.
The six weeks since have been a fog, she [Dixie Pelzer] said, an initiation into a parallel world occupied by the families of the 3,611 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq.
How about some quotes from those parents of the 3,611 who were actually opposed to the war-- not just from fear for their own sons and daughters lives but also from fear of the larger meaning and consequences of Bush’s and the Republican’s rabid and predictably destructive policies?
There is no time or column inches for them apparently; perhaps they aren’t victims the way these grieving staunch, twice-voting, moral, god-fearing family-values Republicans are.
No, there’s no sympathy for the anti-family, pro-abortion, homosexual-loving, tree-hugging, liberal, Democrat, immoral god-haters who opposed the war from the beginning and were branded traitors and lunatics by those who now bury their blind, bloodied and ignorant faith in the ground and weep over the bitter harvest they have sown.
Our sympathies should be with them for their personal loss, and they always have been from the beginning. But from them, to those liberal Democrat strangers who feared for others lives and railed in opposition of their likely waste have been called traitors and ghouls delighting in death by the champions of war and yet it seems no sympathy for the victimization of sage oppnents even now. is worthy of record.
Even now it seems there’s still no sympathy for the humanistic, altruistic, liberal “Devil”.
NOTE: I appreciate there are technical editorial contsraints on any story, but has anyone yet seen an MSM article or report anywhere that sympathetically adresses the pains of those who have lost their sons and daughters for a cause they knew was false but suffered the same sacrifice (or perhaps worse), despite their vehement oppostion?
