Families Angered by Crosses at War Protest

[Modem Butterfly]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082400218.html

CRAWFORD, Texas -- Nearly 600 white wooden crosses in perfectly straight rows stretch down the narrow road leading to President Bush's ranch, a sea of names in the grassy ditch. Lt. Seth Dvorin. Sgt. David W. Johnson. Daniel Torres. Casey Sheehan.

SNIP

Sherry Orlando, a spokeswoman at Fort Campbell, Ky., said she doesn't want her husband, who was killed in Iraq in 2003, to be used "for someone's political agenda."

SNIP

The 11-by-20-inch crosses in Crawford are similar to the "Arlington West" display at the Santa Monica, Calif., pier that has been erected each Sunday since April 2004 by the Los Angeles chapter of Veterans for Peace. Because beach space is limited, there are 1,000 white crosses, 80 red crosses _ one for every 10 soldiers killed _ and blue crosses denoting how many troops died in the last week.

SNIP

At the Crawford display, group members wrote names on the crosses using a Department of Defense list of troop casualties. All soldiers were not listed because there were not enough crosses, although about 200 more were erected recently at the protesters' second site, a private lot being used for large events.

[mmonk]

1. I see

Sherry Orlando, a spokeswoman at Fort Campbell, Ky., said she doesn't want her husband, who was killed in Iraq in 2003, to be used "for someone's political agenda."
Too late

[txaslftist]

3. jinx

[KyndCulture]

7. exactly!! sherry is very confused.

[bribri16]

33. Sad but Sherry's husband has already been used for someone's

political agenda: the Bush-neocon-PNAC agenda. Somebody please tell her.

[emulatorloo]

56. Sherry Orlando works in the Fort Campbell PR office -- EOM

[K-W]

9. She is just adding to the politicization. EOM

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. Oh the irony!

:spank:

[whatever4]

20. Ain't that the truth

I wonder if she had the faintest idea how party-line-towing that sounded, and how foolish, compared to a preemptive war of aggression having no end planned, and acually having been planned for no reason at all. I wonder if she realizes.

If you didn't want your husband used dearie, you shouldn't have married a guy in the military. They ARE government property. He WAS used for a political agenda. By definition. Fool.

And you, sweetheart...you sat back and let it happen. Perhaps we can say YOU used him for political agenda, widow of a man whose cross you disregard. You sat back on your ass and let him die, because it's just easier than using your brain.

I don't mean to put down relatives of fallen soldiers. If I did that, I'd be putting down Cindy and so many others. But I highly condemn someone that has lost their loved one and still sees fit to tow the party line in the face of OTHERS who have lost loved ones, and have a problem with it. Bush has been nothing but two-faced about every aspect of this war, and it cannot be seen as unreasonable to force him to defend it in other than generalized terms that don't answer questions.

One might say it's okay to still believe in the war. Okay fine. But it's not okay to talk political slander to a grieving mother who wants the same answers we ALL want. Not when you aren't any better by even your OWN simple definition.

She didn't want him used for political agenda? And said so, in public, about Crawford? All I'd say to her is, you might as well have shot your husband yourself, and so, you're a poor excuse for a wife. Especially the wife of a soldier. That's what our nation did, by closing it's eyes and it's ears, sending them off to war, and it looks like you're just another one.

But you're worse, because you still refuse to see. Fool me once, shame on you...

[tgnyc]

57. It's sad enough she lost her husband,

but she is struggling with ignorance on top of that.

That way too many Americans are as unskilled in critical thinking as Ms. Orlando is explains how it is that Mr. Bush has not been driven out of Washington permanently by now.

[Cha]

58. Poor disillusioned

woman. Thanks, for pointing this out! Now if we could just get word to Sherry Orlando, from Fort Campbell, Ky.

[txaslftist]

2. ...but having a son killed for someone's political agenda is okay?

[calico1]

4. Its hard to understand their thinking sometimes. n/t

[rodeodance]

8. it is hard to understand, but practically--I think these famlies wishes

should be honored.

[etherealtruth]

62. Agreed (100%)

[jrthin]

25. Maybe it's hard to understand

their thinking because they are NOT thinking.

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. They're actually "thinking"?

Could've fooled me.

[mmonk]

Exactly my point

[txindy]

15. Yup and so is the reverse

Someone being killed and having it turned into a political agenda (e.g., the thousands killed on 9/11) is okay, too.

[Past_World_Doubt]

5. You're too late, he already was. He died for it.

And for the oil and resources of the middle east. Horray for freedom on the march! :crazy:

[Modem Butterfly]

6. Interesting tidbit, apparently Gary Qualls has been stealing crosses

This is near the end of the second page.

Last week Gary Qualls, whose Marine son Louis died in Fallujah last fall, went to the Crawford site and yanked up a cross bearing his son's name. He said it was disrespectful because he disagrees with the protesters' views and supports Bush.

But Qualls said the demonstrators keep replacing the crosses. Since then, Qualls said, he has removed two more crosses bearing his son's name. The three crosses are now in front of "Fort Qualls," a pro-Bush camp set up last weekend in downtown Crawford.

[KyndCulture]

11. oh we're STEALING now? those values... I get so mixed up about them.

killing - a-ok, stealing - okee dokee...

praying for peace - bad.

enough to make one's head spin.

[rodeodance]

12. according to the article Qualls is only taking his son's cross. I think

that it would be wise to let him have it and not replace it.

[Modem Butterfly]

14. You know, you're right

I was a bit hasty when I made that post. Let Qualls have his son's cross, and if he objects to his son's name being used like this, don't put up any more crosses for his son. It makes the crosses look like a petty little pissing match.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. Put one and write "Name withheld?" (nt)

[KyndCulture]

17. we've been round and round on that debate..

but I still think leaving a blank cross in the memorial to represent his son is not a bad thing. He can take the name down, that's his right, but that number should be represented.

[Modem Butterfly]

19. There are 600 crosses at Camp Casey

Using another name will unfortunately not be difficult and it would avoid bad PR.

[KyndCulture]

21. agreed! nt

[Child_Of_Isis]

22. That's a good ideal. n/t

[Justitia]

28. I liked the suggestion of leaving the cross, marked "Name Withheld On Reque

"Name Withheld On Request"

That was another DUers suggestion, and I thought it was a good one.

[SidDithers]

24. Replace it with a blank cross...

or a cross with the phrase "Name witheld by request of family" or something like that. The effect of 1800 (approaching 1900) crosses is just as powerful, and completely eliminates the problem of "offended" Bush-supporting families.

Sid

[Modem Butterfly]

27. 600

There are 600 crosses at Crawford. Find another name. Zeus knows there are plenty.

[SidDithers]

32. Thanks for the correction...

I thought with the extra room at Camp Casey, it had been increased to the actual number. My mistake. :)

Sid

[jane_pippin]

30. That's a good idea.

It still has an impact, shows we/protesters are respectful, etc. Good compromise.

[HereSince1628]

52. I absolutely agree.

This is a matter of respecting families' wishes.

It's pretty easy to not put a name on a cross.

[Straight Shooter]

55. That whirring sound is Louis Qualls spinning in his grave. n/t

[Cha]

59. The cross bearing his son's name

will not be used for stopping the war..his son's "cross" will be used to prolong the massacre.

[Solly Mack]

13. My husband served under Kim Orlando.

Oh, the things I could say...but won't.

[xchrom]

16. sherry orlando -- your husband died for a lie.

war protestors never made this war political -- the VERY thing we were against.

bushco used politics to kill your husband.

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. Thank goodness someone finally said that!

"war protesters never made this war political" :applause: Hear that freepies?

[LaurenG]

18. Oh boy...

Sherry Orlando, a spokeswoman at Fort Campbell, Ky., said she doesn't want her husband, who was killed in Iraq in 2003, to be used "for someone's political agenda."


Um, ok - whose political agenda did he die for in the first place.

I can't imagine how painful this must be for her. She just hasn't realized who/what/when/how this happened yet.

[Brewman_Jax]

23. Heard a article on NPR

where some of the families were interviewed. The Bush* supporters had one thing in common--they had to swallow the kool-aid because they could not bring themselves to believe that their loved ones were endangered/wounded/dead for a lie and a political agenda. It was sad.

[Modem Butterfly]

26. I think it would be a very hard thing to deal with

You know, yesterday there was a long thread about how Senator Rick "Man-on-dog" Santorum took his miscarried, dead baby hope from the hospital, let the kids play with it for awhile, took a nap with it even, before having a burial service. Many of us, myself included, found that to be repellent and bizarre. Many others felt that it was part of the natural grieving process and that we shouldn't judge.

Certainly if Rick Santorum can be excused for violating all sorts of laws regarding dead bodies and medical waste as being in grief, we can excuse the Kool-Aid drinkers for having their heads in the sand.

[Brewman_Jax]

34. I missed that thread

but Mr. Santorum's (people I don't like I don't use their first name) decision only affects his family. The kool-aid drinkers refusal to see the truth affects the whole country. They should not be excused for helping to continue the lie.

That's brings up another question: What's more important to them, their political agenda, or their loved ones' swift return?

[Modem Butterfly]

36. That's just it...

It seems transparent to me that taking a corpse home, passing it around to your toddlers, and taking a nap with it is beyond nuts. It also seems transparent to me that bereaved families shouldn't support a policy that will only lead to more bereaved families. But we have to handle each issue carefully, because there are those who feel grief provides an excuse.

Edited to add: I guess I somehow cut this out of my previous post that you responded to. My bad. :blush:

[txaslftist]

37. Grief DOES provide a valid excuse...

...I don't like Santorums' politics either, but if bringing home the body of his dead child and trying to achieve some sort of closure by letting his children and family see it is what he needs to do, then let him do it and leave the man in peace.


Some things are too painful, personal and sacred to criticize.

That's my view.

[Modem Butterfly]

41. Then we have lost all standing to criticize Qualls and company

[txaslftist]

51. I wouldn't think to criticize QUALLS.

Shit, the man lost his son. I agree with the folks who say we should leave a blank cross or a cross with someone elses' name on it where his son's would have been.

I disagree with his politics, and I disagree with his idea that by protesting the war and demanding that the other troops be brought home we are somehow dishonoring his son, but I'm not about to criticize him for taking his son's cross out of the display. As a matter of respect for his grief and his loss, he should be allowed to do that.

If we take the position that the parents of the dead soldiers who want to believe their sons/daughters died in a heroic cause are open to the same kind of personal attacks the pukes have been levelling at Mrs. Sheehan, what have we become? I don't want to be a mirror image of the despicable Ann Coulter, thank you very much.

Compassion is a Republican lack, not a Democrat one. ALL parents, spouses and kin who have lost soldiers deserve our utmost respect and sympathy. That is what makes us different from them.

[Justitia]

42. I agree on the personal, family level. What do we do about the war dead?

I'm asking because this is really a conundrum...

I recognize that these pro-war families are experiencing great cognitive dissonance and I sympathize for them in that regard.
However, I think to pass over them out of mercy has serious repercussions for all those that will die needlessly if this war goes on and on.

This same thinking (we can't leave now, it will dishonor the already dead) is what kept us in Vietnam for so much longer, so many more dead, for the same end result (nothing). We still have people who think if we had stayed in Vietnam for just a little longer we would have won! ?!?!?!

I am at a total loss as to how we handle this dilemma. All we can do is point out how this same thing happened in Vietnam and it's devastating consequences, but so many people resist the lessons of history, it's so frustrating!

[txaslftist]

53. Respect, Compassion, Sympathy.

So long as we begin any dialogue with the prowar families with these three things, we remain Democrats.

In my view we must do everything we do to stop the war, and we must be careful, just as careful as any paramedic in the back of an ambulance. Because we are saving lives.

[Justitia]

38. Perfect example of Cognitive Dissonance. So how do we handle it?

I'm never sure. Normally I wouldn't comment on someone's private mental struggle, but I feel a response is necessary when they bring it to the public square of ideas - and especially when they use it as a club against others who have suffered a loss.

I don't think we can just recognize that they are suffering from Cognitive Dissonance and allow them to redirect the debate w/out comment.

In the long run, that only allows more people to die needlessly. So what do we (collective) do???

[Brewman_Jax]

54. That's the $64K question

I sympathize with their grief, but the cognitive dissonance makes me mad. :grr: I have no idea this moment other than to keep up the protests. If I had the right answer, I could be President.

[Supersedeas]

31. Is prohibiting the display of crosses also a POLITICAL AGENDA!!!!

They are supposed to be American soldiers...not family soldiers.

Maybe, if her husband was a private contractor mercenary, then she might have a point...but these are American soldiers send essentially to represent American interests in the world. That maam makes it a POLITICAL AGENDA!!!!

[oneighty]

35. The Military of the United States

is 'Our' Military. When one of them dies on our behalf they become 'Our' children, our collective burden. Let the crosses stand, we made them, they are ours to live with.

180

[imperialismispasse]

39. I think how anybody chooses to mourn is okay.

If they really don't want them there then put a blank cross in like somebody above this said. It's hard for me to understand how someone who lost a family member could still support this war but it's not for me to judge. I don't know how I would feel if I lost my parent, kid or spouse. I think I would go a little crazy.

[RethugAssKicker]

40. I say.. Just leave a blank cross

She's a sad fool.

[Cha]

61. Yes, "A Blank Cross" is

what needs to be put up, instead..honor the wishes of his poor disillusioned wife.

[Obamarama]

43. And anti-abortion signs with photos of aborted fetuses isn't propaganda???

These people can't have it both ways. I know that's the Republican Way - do as I say, not as I do - but oh, my, how they cry foul when anyone else plays by their rules. Fucking hypocrites.

[Generic Other]

44. I posted a link here:

8/24 ALL DU Cindy threads DAY 18
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4443666#4443683

[LSK]

47. used for political agenda??

"Sherry Orlando, a spokeswoman at Fort Campbell, Ky., said she doesn't want her husband, who was killed in Iraq in 2003, to be used "for someone's political agenda.""

Ummm didnt her husband die for Bush's political agenda???

The only agenda at Camp Casey is to prevent future soldiers from dying. Thats it.

[Clintmax]

48. Now why wouldn't this woman want her husband's name to be...

on a cross? Does it in some way demean his sacrifice for the U.S.? No, it does not! In fact, it memorializes his memory! I don't know WHERE she gets the idea that it is for someone else's political agenda.

[ArkDem]

49. I wish they would use something other than crosses. They just

don't seem to be a very inclusive symbol.

[Modem Butterfly]

50. Indeed, particularly when they are to represent groups of soldiers

Perhaps Camp Casey could use photographs of the soldiers. Seeing their faces, just how young they were, or in some case, how old, is a very powerful thing.

[ArkDem]

65. Or middle aged.

[Catherine Vincent]

60. If the spouse or parent of a serviceman (or woman) killed in Iraq

contacted the Peace House to not use their loved one's name on a cross, then they should respect their wishes. Imo, I don't know why they would care....you'd think they'd be honored. Weird.

[Norquist Nemesis]

63. She might want to take a second look at hubby's tombstone

It seems soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are now the first group of people who have served that have the 'option' of the battle they were killed in to be on the marker (e.g. Operation Iraqi Freedom). The Pentagon now foots the tab on the headstones (law changed a few years ago from making the family pay for it). In some cases, it's being put on there without the permission of the families.

[melv]

64. it's sort of the same thing that Cindy Sheehan wants

she wants her son's name to be excluded when Bush talks about the soldiers support for the war. So, in kind, if a father doesn't want his son's name used as a statement, then we should respect that as well.

I'm not crazy about the cross idea either. I wish they were flags or markers.