Who's right on the Qualls cross? (Sheenan Crawford camp)

[Robb]

Reading this article about the father of the slain soldier, who removed his son's cross from the camp surrounding Sheenan.

Apparently the protesters keep putting it back up.

Who's right? Should the father have the last say on where his son's name gets used? Or is the issue here big enough to supplant his wishes?

[qanda]

1. I just cannot imagine someone being that insensitive

They should take the cross down and keep it down.

[gee double you bee]

2. Jesus

Talk about a heartbreaking situation. I think if it's a partial memorial, I side with the father. But if there's a cross for every solider that's been lost, a memorial for all of them, I think it should stay.

I'm not exactly sure why I draw that distinction, but there you go.

[ElectroPrincess]

3. The question itself is somewhat inane ...

The son's death is public news. Simply remove the name and leave the symbol. The father has "emotional problems" if he thinks that such actions are noble. Again, the son's death is public.

Honoring the war dead by such an action = does not equate one-to-one with regard to those hideous leftist protesters. Even those damn lefties understand that not EVERYONE is anti-war. :sarcasm:

BTW why are we hyper-focusing on such an inane issue?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

I agree with you on both points n/t

[Robb]

9. "We" were just curious what others thought

I found myself wondering what I would do were I there, in either group's shoes. And not being sure.

I like keeping the cross and removing the name. But I'm a Solomon fan. ;)

[Booster]

10. Now, we need you to run for office. A logical compromise if I ever

heard one. Just as we expect Cindy to be respected for what she is doing, we should also respect a father's wish that his son's name not be used for another's cause. Remove the name, leave the cross. Simple.

[ElectroPrincess]

30. I would never run for office, I don't trust or particularly like ...

politicians.

Sorry you're being PLAYED ... perhaps by minions of Rove.

But if makes you feel more righteous to tout the conservative meme that will be played up in the days to come, then go for it. But know this is all a big "fuck you" complements of Bush-Co.

A concocted crisis. ;)

[Lindacooks]

4. Anyone who has lost a loved one in war has the right to decide

how that person's name will be used, or not.

[annabanana]

5. what Linda said

I pray that I may never walk in his shoes...

[MADem]

28. Casey Sheehan's parents do not agree

Cindy is pro peace, her husband pro Bush.

Which parent should rule?

These kids were serving our nation when they died, so in essence, they are PUBLIC figures. They are by their deaths a part of our nation's history.

I go with keeping the name.

[KyndCulture]

6. remove the NAME not the cross... it stands as one of our troops.

that is a symbol.... but the Father has a right to remove his son's name.

[ElectroPrincess]

13. Yeah, and we all too have the right to behave like horse's behinds ...

This issue is being played up by the corporate media to AVOID the true issues. And guess what? The sheeple are lapping it up just like the Halloway pseudo-news.

Why is this even a story? And how do you really know that the people did not remove the name in the first place? Oh, our media wouldn't lie, would they?

[KyndCulture]

19. mea culpa... you are right!! this is probably so much BS...

[ElectroPrincess]

34. mea culpa ... me too and back at you good will!

tks, we don't really know. But I'd bet big bucks that Rove is studying this situation "very closely" and if he can bring in more parents to "raise a stink" he won't hesitate.

I also agree that the protesters there should do as what was probably done in the first place (complaint), keep the symbol but remove the name.

Simple solution - I hope and pray this "easily resolved" problem doesn't become hyped.

The solution is SIMPLE, enough said (wrote). :blush:

[gee double you bee]

15. good point

that sounds about right.

[coffeenap]

7. How about a blank one for him? (and unidentified others,if needed.)

[KyndCulture]

12. that's what I think too... a blank one... it represents a number too

as cold as that sounds... but that is part of the symbolism.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Cross people.

How can mourning someone/something be wrong?

It's humanity.

[jobycom]

11. He can't tell us how to honor the fallen troops. What is this crap, he get

to decide who can respect his son and who can't? His son's name is too good to stand next the those of the other soldiers? I don't agree.

[seabeyond]

16. he is the father as sheehan is the mother

to decide for this man is to allow the supporters of bush to decide how sheehan should honor her son. if you cannot respect this father, dont expect or demand the right to respect sheehan

hypocrisy otherwise

i like the take the name off, leave a cross, to anyone who requests

[jobycom]

26. Absolutely wrong

No one is telling Mr Qualls how to honor his son. He can honor him however he wants. Mr. Qualls is telling us we can't honor his son how we want. He's wrong. There's no hypocrisy there, just a false sylogism.

[seabeyond]

29. your wrong. if the man believes in bush or the war, to put his sons

name on that cross, a political view he totally disagrees with is a dishonoring to him. it would be the same as the opposition making a sign of casey sheehan and saying htis man died in honor for a noble cause.

would that be offensive, i ask you

[jobycom]

38. The cross is not a political view, it's a tribute to the troops.

Maybe that's your mistake. You think all those crosses are only a peace protest? Then what was all the rhetoric about Larry Northern dishonoring the troops? He didn't, by your description, he simply ran over a peace protest.

Even if you claim it is peace protest, so what? His son died in service to my nation. I can honor him how I want. He can honor Casey Sheehan how he wants. When he starts telling me how to honor the soldiers who fought and died for my country, he has crossed the line.

[seabeyond]

44. i do get your point

reading down further i see what people were saying, but i dont agree putting the name back up. i dont. it is a demonstration against the war. you can say it is an honoring of the soldier, it also feels that it is a graphic visual on the numbers of death, and the power and impact of it. i can see how a parent opposed to cindy's opinion would have a hard time seeing it as you state. i think that is asking an awful lot, of seeing the left in such purity. i have a hard time buying it, lol.

whatever. battle this, or dont

i would prefer not to hurt another human being. period. especially one that has lost a child in this war. that is the person i am. i would take name off and put fallen soldier as suggested

[MADem]

31. OK, what happens to Camp Casey, then?

Casey Sheehan's FATHER, Cindy's soon to be ex husband, does not agree with her. Does not he, as the father, under your logic, have the right to remove his kid's name from the cross and the camp down in Crawford?

I reiterate, these poor kids are public figures for the ages now. They died serving the nation in war, their names are part of history, and no longer private.

[seabeyond]

35. then dont be arrogant enough to bitch when the other side

bashes sheehan and doesnt respect her. it is a them vs us mentality. not a single bitch of we are allowed for a higher good, but by gosh, they are pigs

and i dont think the father will, do you

[jobycom]

43. That's absolutely wrong, too.

No one is bashing Mr. Qualls. We are saying we can honor his son in our tribute how we see fit. Just as he or anyone who agrees with the war can, and does, use Casey's name in displays honoring the troops. I haven't heard Cindy saying no one else can honor her son's name. I haven't seen that at all. If I did, I would disagree with her. Just as I disagree with Mr. Qualls.

You are equating someone honoring Mr. Qualls' son with someone else attacking Cindy Sheehan for speaking out against the war. Those are completely different things. To have an accurate comparison, you would have to have someone telling Mr. Qualls that HE can't use his son's name to make his own points, or you would have to have Cindy Sheehan telling people across the nation that they couldn't honor Casey's sacrifice by using his name on their displays. Both of those would be wrong, but neither is what we are talking about here.

[MADem]

63. Personally, I do not waste my time or energy on "them"

They are going to act like asses, and we can call them out on it if we so choose. That's a free society...

My point is that if you say the "loved one" of the deceased has all rights to the use of their name, after they served the taxpayers of this nation and have become a historical FACT of said history (killed in a war prosecuted by our nation), then more of those crosses would be blank. Families do not all agree on this issue.

I think the father of Casey could well take the same course of action if he had the RIGHT to so do, which he does not (and neither does that other father, IMHO). After all, he served Cindy with divorce papers a week or two ago while she was in TX. I think he would do it, if he had the law on his side, just to give her a hard time. He is a steadfast Republican who supports the bike riding monkey boy.

[seabeyond]

68. they filed clear back in june i believe

and they were given to her last week, she says, not by his own making. i will trust her word

[MADem]

73. They were simply separated, but HE filed on Aug 12

AUGUST 15--The next well-wisher approaching Cindy Sheehan at her tent encampment outside President George W. Bush's Texas vacation home may actually be a process server. That's because the California woman's husband--in a curious bit of timing--filed for divorce Friday afternoon (below you'll find a copy of Patrick Sheehan's complaint, lodged August 12 in Solano County District Court). With Sheehan, 48, entering a second week outside Bush's Crawford retreat, her husband's divorce petition cites "irreconcilable differences" for the demise of the couple's 28-year marriage (the Sheehans, the document states, have been separated since June 1). Along with a Vacaville home, Patrick Sheehan listed other "community assets" as "any and all benefits payable as a result of son's death," including a Prudential insurance policy and "benefits from the U.S. Government." From her roadside outpost, Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Casey, an Army Specialist, was killed last year in Iraq, has become the face of the U.S. antiwar movement, telling reporters that she will not budge until Bush meets with her and explains "why our sons are dead." Noting that Bush has referred to the war as a "noble" pursuit, Sheehan told Reuters, "If it's such a noble cause, why aren't his daughters over there?" Through an aide, Patrick Sheehan's lawyer, Glen DeRonde, declined to comment about the court filing, so it is unclear whether the divorce complaint will be delivered to Cindy Sheehan in Texas or when she returns to her home east of San Francisco. (4 pages)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html

[Lars39]

14. He "says", but did it actually happen?

What are the organizers at Camp Casey saying about it?

[ElectroPrincess]

18. That's the point ...

This is pseudo-news! Why are we hyper-focusing on such stu-pid topics. They (corporate media via direction by BushCo) set this situation up to keep us DISTRACTED.

Wow, no wonder we can never win an election. Please focus on WHO or WHAT GROUP benefits most from such a story? Then consider that it might not be the "straight scoop."

If you don't think MANY (squads) of PR people are not trying to discredit the Anti-War movement by "ANY METHOD", you better think again.

We'll (anti-occupation movement) probably be shouted down and pushed aside, but let's not do it to ourselves because of such bind naive trust of, of all corporate entities, the Corporate USA News Media?

[Robb]

23. ...So I can't ask what is an interesting question

...because you think I'm feeding some kind of PR machine?

That's why we can't win an election, friend. :hi:

[ElectroPrincess]

39. I was raised among the far right wing (secular bent)

No, to date (glancing at watch) the good ole USA is a free country (sort of) with free speech.

But I KNOW THE RIGHT WING and they play hard and nasty. If you want to win an election or get the whorish corporate media to pay attention, you best keep "your eye on the prize."

Now in no way am I trying to dumb down the good folks here, nor dictate what we hyper-focus on.

I'm only suggesting that this is NON-news, in that, the people at Camp Casey are very empathetic to all persons visiting. I have no doubt that when the father complained, they immediately removed the son's name and kept the symbol.

I also know that it feels good to re-empathize what the good folks at Camp Casey have already done.

Just want to approach this cause as a team. I am hoping we can pull something off, and without a miracle, we MUST try to work together and understand HOW the RW will attempt to sabotage our efforts.

[Lars39]

37. You're preachin' to the choir, here. :^)

[dweller]

17. have a question after reading the article

is he (Qualls) the same person that had previously visited the camp and had a meet with Cindy?

trying to find out for info in another thread.

tia
dp

[JanusAscending]

48. YES HE IS !!!

There was a picture of him and Cindy HUGGING in one of the earliest posts. I think it was that day after the night we were all up so late waiting to see if they were going to arrest Cindy. Yes this is the very same man, and when I saw him "blubbering" on TV yesterday on one of the cable news shows, I had a feeling that he "had been gotten to" if you know what I mean? It was very scripted, and true he was distressed, but I don't believe,.....that he really believed a word he was saying. I wonder how much, or what they offered him?????

[JanusAscending]

52. P.S.

In one of the pictures that were submitted the same day, there was a close up of two crosses, almost side by side. One with Caseys name on it,the other with his sons name on it , both decorated very beautifully! Doees anyone else remember this?

[dweller]

56. yep, posted below

Lone_Star_Dem found it.

dp

[Cleita]

20. Something about the father.

He came to the camp days ago and wanted to know if his son was memorialized there. They showed him the cross. He later met with Cindy who said he was a very nice man. Everyone was fine that day. Two days later he came back and took the cross back. Not to second guess, but I get the impression that others got to him, whether relatives or my suspicion is that his church got to him.

[ElectroPrincess]

24. No, I think the minions of Bush-Co's PR team got to him ...

And let's just say, made him an offer that he couldn't refuse. :puke:

[Generic Other]

51. He was accompanied by Ankarlo on Andersen Cooper's show

Ankarlo was from the Crawford radio station that organized the counterprotest last Sat. He hovered over Mr. Qualls and his mouth moved when Qualls spoke. They were handling the guy rather deftly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4387253&mesg_id=4388174

[dweller]

41. Lone_Star_Dem found this

in discussion here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4410831&mesg_id=4410831

dp

[ellenfl]

59. i thought i remembered that he was comforted by cindy.

perhaps this is an effort by the shrub camp, to discredit cindy . . . and give qualls his 15 minutes of fame. he objected to her presence to begin with. take the name off the cross. no more controversy.

ellen fl

[KyndCulture]

21. Did anyone's family asked that a name be removed from the Viet Nam wall?

Just askin...are there blanks?

I think the memorial stands, no matter if there is a blank cross or not.

[Richard Steele]

55. Bingo! You read my mind, Señor KYND!

Right away, I thought of the 60 thousand names on "the WALL" in DC...

Personally, I think that this guy's son's NAME should be
taken off, in respect for a greiving dad.

And his cross should say "NAME REMOVED", just like deleted posts here at DU.

[KyndCulture]

65. Señora Kynd actually, but totally 100% agree.... the memorial stands.

[Richard Steele]

67. OOPS! My bad, Ma'am! I offer my most profound apologies!

Glad you agree about the crosses, though.

[LibDemAlways]

62. I thought of the same thing when

I read the story the other day of a California woman who wants the cross bearing her son's name removed from the Arlington West display in Santa Barbara. It's her right, of course, but would she object to his name being on a permanent memorial like the Vietnam Wall? What's the difference. They both honor the sacrifice of the fallen.

[smartvoter]

69. The difference is the anti-war association.

He is making the same case Cindy is, but on the other side of the war. Arlington West is not a neutral memorial, and though I fully believe that Arlington West is appropriate and respectful, I can see how a parent unable to accept the reality of having lost a child in a war based on fabrications would not want his son's name on an anti-war memorial.

I expect to be flamed for this post, which is fine -- it goes with the territory sometimes. But the fair position here is that if Cindy can ask that her son's name not be used in arguments to continue the war, this man can ask that his son's name not be used in arguments to end it.

We can think he's wrong and still support Cindy and her efforts while respecting his position.

[LibDemAlways]

71. I respect the position of any parent who

doesn't want their child's name on one of the crosses. Maybe, as others have suggested, the name could be replaced with "Fallen Soldier." Still, any and all memorials of this type serve as reminders that war has a terrible cost -- a truth that ought to transcend politics.

[smartvoter]

72. Agreed on all points! nt

[bananas]

74. Or Nightline or icasualties.org or The Washington Post?

Some tv stations didn't carry Nightline when Ted Kopel read the names of the war dead, should he have only read the names if the family gave permission?
icasualties.org has a list of the war dead - should some names be removed?
There are a websites which have names and photos of the war dead,
and at least two art exhibits where people have painted portraits.
This works both ways - if an anti-war parent perceives a website as pro-war should they remove the name and photo? If a site is "neutral" and a pro-war parent doesn't want "neutral" sites listing the name?

My opinion: soldiers are not free citizens, they are property of the U.S. Government, their names are public record, it is up to the exhibit creator what to do, I would prefer that the names stay on.

Names and portraits (paintings)
Two seperate projects with the same title "Faces of the Fallen":
http://www.facesofthefallen.org/
http://www.marin.cc.ca.us/departments/art/faces_exhibit/

Names and photos - special exhibits on all major news sites
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

[Horse with no Name]

22. I think anyone that objects to their child's name that the name should be

removed and replaced simply with "Fallen Soldier".
In this instance...the rights and wishes of every family need to be respected.

[ElectroPrincess]

27. Yes, Karen Hughes will be contacting a number of relatives of

conservatives who lost their child in Iraq, to play sympathy for people like you to BACK out of the cause.

Wake up folks, this is a tactic, a maneuver.

Better think of tactics and being duped, otherwise we'll (Democrats) go down again in 2006.

[seabeyond]

32. so as we yell about the right swiftboating sheehan and the ugliness

of the right to sheehan and the total disrespect.........to a mom that grieves her son in an unjustified war, you suggest we do the same, in order to win.

the end justifies the means. kinda the whole problem with the right and christianity at this moment

play ball.....

lets just all duke is out and say fuck it to any type of integrity or goodness or morality or ethics.

[ElectroPrincess]

40. POLITICS = has always been lacking in morality or ethics - not new

[seabeyond]

47. well then, i guess you have no bitch about bush

you seem to be ok with it. i personally am not

[ElectroPrincess]

54. Oh stop it! = You're not morally pure either. We're all human.

If you want to "inherit the earth" then keep with the holier than though rants. However, pride is also a profound sin.

Moderation in all things.

What I'm saying is that you are "being played" by Bush's PR people. If you think I'm a heartless bitch, you're wrong, but that's not the point.

The point is that you are being played. Your desire to always show the BEST light on one's character (focus on the self) is how Rove plays moderates.

We must SEE how we are being manipulated and adjust accordingly. I have been sucked in also. But I've learned to study THEIR SIDE as well as ours.

[seabeyond]

61. gosh you were able to really put me in my place here werent you

it isnt a desire to prove anything to you who i am, but then thanks for sharing with me, your interpretation of who i am. i am well aware of the pathitic of who rove is. i am just not so willing to fall in line and become another rove to win. kinda his game if you want to know the truth. he loses nothing, he gains hugely if we play his game. so who would the sucker be

if we become as callous and manipulative as he, all that will be seen is we all do it. so what does it matter. it matters. i would rather we walk away from this self destructive behavior than embracing and becoming.

only for my kids future. i dont raise my kids to be that. they see a better way to be. i would like them not to have to live in a world where we all chose to live this way, because.......what

the ends justify the means. it does not

we have become a nation of anger. how. how did that happen. we fed off each other. we allowed it to be. the same will happen if we all throw away ethics cause it benefits us. someone has to be the example, unless you just want to give up. and i will tell you something else. the left will never win this battle. we can never be as heartless, we can never lie so blatanly, we can never be that corrupt. we will lose that battle for sure

so no, it isnt the answer

but thanks, for lecturing me on pride

[ElectroPrincess]

64. I'm sorry if you thought that I was lecturing specifically you ...

I've lived among some very heartless right wing nut cases in my life.

I know in my heart and soul (not lecturing YOU because this is about OUR country not *specific* individuals such as yourself), that if we don't unite and speak with one voice, we will be slaves to multi-national corporations.

Yes, politics, in and of itself is about as moral as a striptease in a titty bar. IF you don't sometimes play hardball, you will lose.

I am willing to unite with others as a team because I do not want America's next generation (our children) to live in abject poverty.

That's exactly where we are headed if we don't get serious and push our points with our so called Representatives.

[Horse with no Name]

49. Cindy Sheehan's message isn't political

The Rethugs are politicizing it.

[KyndCulture]

50. Absolutely!!! Cindy's message is a message of a mother's love.

And disgust for the waste that caused her son's death.. that is NOT political... it's universal.

[Horse with no Name]

46. I haven't back OUT of anything

You don't know me. Don't pretend to speak for me. I don't give a fuck what Karen Hughes does.
These crosses don't represent a political statement. These crosses represent someone's child who has died.
IF that person who died has a family that DOESN'T wish for their soldier's name to be included, we have NO right whatsoever to include it. You can memorialize the death with a cross that just bears "Fallen Soldier".
You have NO right to decide for those parent's what they can and can't do. We have to respect their rights just as we want them to respect ours.
Remember...Do unto others?
If you think fighting with dead soldier's parents will further our cause for peace...I believe the train derailed somewhere.

[ElectroPrincess]

60. Exactly ... and the "you" was the generic moderate

No I don't know you but you do "make generalizations" about this particular issue that I find disturbing since we do not know all the facts. These generalizations play right into Rove's plan.

All people of good conscious think the symbol stays, name removed (end of story?!?) That is stating the OBVIOUS.

I was speaking of MODERATES, in general. I regret that you interpreted as just the individual that is you.

On Edit: IMO *every issue* in BushWorld is MADE POLITICAL. It's the neo-con's and corporate news media's world, the rest of us just live in it. :-)

[Solly Mack]

25. Some military wives I purely despise created a t-shirt with the names

of the soldiers in my husband's unit.

When I say despise, I mean D -espise...nothing about them did I find appealing or redeeming in any way. Willfully, stubbornly ignorant people who say the most incredibly stupid things....along with just being vicious, hate-filled, gossipy troublemakers...

As much as I wanted to demand that my husband's name not be included on that shirt, I held my tongue.

I understood they were paying respect to the entire company...in their own way....

It didn't take anything away from my husband....it just really annoyed the fuck out of me.

[TahitiNut]

33. The father has a right to be wrong (and a hypocrite).

The father proclaims the 'sacrifice' of his son to be in defense of America (and presumably Americans). The sponsors of the memorial are honoring those whose lives were 'sacrificed' (but not the 'sacrifice'). So, is the father claiming that the (purported) beneficiaries of his son's 'sacrifice' can't express their gratitude and respect for the son? Was the 'sacrifice' NOT for all Americans but only for some? If the father actually believed what he was claiming, he'd honor the very freedoms he purports were defended and would recognize that Americans can rightfully honor that 'sacrifice' by memorializing it while actively practicing those freedoms.

But he doesn't. He's wrong (and a hypocrite). But he has that right. The protesters should demonstrate grace as well as gratitude and leave the "grave" (cross) unmarked (unnamed) -- as though it were a part of the family's faith tradition.

[ElectroPrincess]

36. They probably already DID, but isn't this fun? /eom

[AuntPatsy]

42. He has no right to remove the cross, but he does have the right to ask

his son's name be removed if he feels that passionate about it, I say they should honor the father's wishes, it doesn't hurt the cause, so why hurt the father any more than he is hurting and will the rest of his life.

[ElectroPrincess]

45. They didn't in the first place - they did respect him and,

in essence the Bush-Co PR crones who convinced him to do a 180 on his attitude within 24 hours.

The dad was a flip-flopper but pressure by the Bush people would intimidate anyone.

[AuntPatsy]

53. I have no doubt he was coecered, its just horrible how they keep using

people's emotions to induce hated rhetoric. The whole situation is sad. I have noticed though, that This vigil in Crawford is having an wonderful effect on some that are clearly in the corner of the CofCC and yet they do not feel that Cindy's action to be anything more than a grieving mother wishing to get valid answers.

This is definately touching even some of the most hard hearted of CCC supporters. Lets hope it doesn't end anytime soon.

[Swamp Rat]

57. Both... Next IMPORTANT issue, please.

:)

[mnhtnbb]

58. There will be more names...

There is not one cross for every soldier who has died.
If the father has a problem, give him the cross. Removing the cross isn't going to bring his son back. Make another cross and put another name on it.

Make the point to the father: as long as the Iraq War continues, there will be more deaths to replace your son's name on the cross.
Is that what he wants?

[DanCa]

66. Self Delete.

[Lisa]

70. what happens if another relative disputes this?

As in the case with Cindy, there may be other family members who don't hold the same opinion. I have no idea how the soldier's mother, siblings (or spouse and kids, if he had them) feel.

But if the pro-war side feels that Cindy's in-laws' views count for just as much as hers -- they also seem to be able to argue that another soldier's father should completely overrule any relatives, friends, or comrades-in-arms who may disagree.

Though in the cultural context, this may not be as much of a double standard as it may appear. Apparently almost half of Americans support the patriarchal structure (the percentage is lower in other parts of the world) -- I'm not saying this is wrong, but it's something to take into account, when studying this situation and people's responses to it.

http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=704
http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/17102003/connections/c3.html
http://www.ppforum.com/ow/Micheal_Adams_Presentation.pdf