« A question for the blue ribbon crowd | Main | Here we go again! »

August 27, 2005

Two more grieving parents

Five gets you fifty that these two guys don't get a tenth the media coverage of Cindy Sheehan.

These two men, Gregg Garvey and Gary Qualls, each lost a son in Iraq, which gives them absolute moral authority according to Maureen Dowd. They're in Crawford now, camping out by the side of the road with some supporters. Sound familiar?

Except these two mourning parents support the war. Not only do they support the war, they are aghast at Cindy Sheehan. As Garvey eloquently puts it:

"I lost my oldest son in Iraq. I’ve been working on this memorial project for two years every since my son was killed. I was sitting at home in Florida watching what was going on here and had no idea what to expect. I’m not here because of politics. The election is over. The president won again, and it’s time as they say to move on again. But at the same time I was not going to sit at home and watch what was going on here, this travesty and injustice to my son and all of his fallen brothers and sisters.”

And then, later:

“We’re brothers in a way we never anticipated. We have a lot of the same healing towards the desecration of our sons and daughters. This is no longer about a grieving mother over there. She referred to these terrorists as freedom fighters. The media insists on calling them insurgents. They are neither. They are terrorists. We liberated that country and now the terrorists are invading that country.”

Camp Casey erected a field of 1,800+ crosses, to "honor" the fallen. Many families of these dead heroes would be appalled to have their son's or daughter's name used in support of these whackjobs, but Cindy Sheehan didn't ask them. Camp Qualls also has a field of crosses. But not 1,800+ of them... only those of the families who gave permission. Quite a few did. Some of them reportedly actually uprooted their child's cross from Camp Casey and delivered it to Camp Qualls. (Of course, this blog does not support theft.)

Let's check out Google News:

"Cindy Sheehan": 15,500 hits.
"Camp Casey": 2,170 hits.
"Gary Qualls": 896 hits
"Gregg Garvey": 3 hits
"Camp Qualls": 3 hits

Thanks, mainstream media, for once again making plain which side you're on!

(Great big hat tip to Eric Pfeiffer and his blog, The Buzz, at NRO. I've been remiss lately in reading the NRO blogs, and this is the kind of thing I've been missing.

August 27, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834559cb569e200d834544e9c53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Two more grieving parents:

Comments


At which point do you get to realize this war has been, and continues to be an unmitigated disaster for America? A growing number of Republicans are being vocal about this now, but you… oooohhhh nooo. On you go, spouting the same mindless, unthinking rhetoric that got America into this mess in the first place. The war is already lost. Much as we would love it to be different, it isn’t. Better get used to it…

1) We have created a terrorist superstate where it didn’t exist previously.
2) Iraq and Iran are increasingly forming an alliance where it didn’t exist previously.
3) Iraq is fast moving towards becoming an Islamic state where it wasn’t previously.
4) Oil prices are soaring
5) Oil security for the United States is greatly compromised.
6) More than 1,800 US troops and many times more Iraqi’s have died for absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing.
7) The US is now the most heavily indebted country in the world, with 25% of all US treasuries owned by China.

It’s time to put an end to your debacle in Iraq. The war was lost long ago.

Posted by: Pat Goodall | Aug 27, 2005 4:22:12 PM

Pat,

You're clueless. Do you really think that terrorists were in every other arab state BESIDES Iraq? Give me a break. Soaring oil prices have nothing to do with Iraq -- it kinda shoots down the whole "blood for oil" mantra -- but rather reflective of an increased worldwide demand. American troops (me being one of them) tend to disagree with you about what we are sacrificing. We wouldn't be reenlisting in record numbers if we didn't believe in this mission; we are the ones who have boots on the ground and have the objective view, and we are the ones who are sacrificing years of our lives and sometimes our lives to see this mission succeed. All we ask from our countrymen is their support. Most do, but some don't.

You've heard the old saying by Claustewitz that "War is politics by other means." That has changed, IMO, to "politics is war by other means." Our enemies cannot hope to defeat us on the battlefield, so they take advantage of the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution and use them against us to defeat us in the arena of ideas. A great deal of our well meaning but naive countrymen assist them, and the end result is a longer, drawn-out war with more casualities. That's why I am greatful for people like VoR, who along with others fight the good fight in the arena of free ideas. They remind our Nintendo generation nation accustomed to instant gratification that our country and the ideals on which it stands is for fighting for, both here and abroad. Our cause is just, our will is strong, and we will not stop until the battle is won. I grieve for the loss of our dead; yet I am comforted by the fact that our country is a country worth fighting for, and that our endeavor in Iraq is as well.

Thanks for your support VoR.

Esto Perpetua!

Posted by: SGT Thomas | Aug 27, 2005 5:42:07 PM


You're clueless. Do you really think that terrorists were in every other arab state BESIDES Iraq? Give me a break.

I'll give you a break. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war. Saddam Hussein as we all know was a brutal dictator. He did not tolerate anything in his own country except his own absolute rule.

He was hated by Osama Bin Laden for being a secular ruler and he in turn hated Osama Bin Laden. I think I'll go with the CIA and MI6 on that one.

Posted by: Pat Goodall | Aug 27, 2005 6:05:34 PM

[i] There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war. [/i]

I want you to write this once more, just so I'm not misunderstanding you. Are you seriously claiming that there were NO terrorists in Iraq whatsoever before we overthrew Saddam?

Posted by: SGT Thomas | Aug 27, 2005 6:36:36 PM


Don't tell me. You're one of the last people in the world who still believe that. Were you also one of the people who believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 911?

THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE WAR. And if you won't take it from me, then listen to your own intelligence agencies!

Posted by: Pat Goodall | Aug 27, 2005 6:46:23 PM


PS - When this is all over, Neoconservatives are going to get lynched.

Posted by: Pat Goodall | Aug 27, 2005 6:48:23 PM

To assert that terrorists were all over the middle east except in Iraq is to be detched from reality. Terrorists from Zarqawi (who was given medical care pre OIF after being wounded in OEF) to Abu Abbas were sheltered by Saddam. In addition, Saddam provided monetary support to the family of homocide bombers in Israel. As you're well aware, our intelligence network in Iraq preinvasion was pretty dismal. Things that happened there are starting to come out and I expect to find more evidence of sheltering of terrorists by Saddam in the future.

And regarding your amusing threat of lynching, who are you kidding? The left couldn't coordinate a lynching if they tried.

Posted by: SGT Thomas | Aug 29, 2005 4:08:01 PM

> As you're well aware, our intelligence network in Iraq
> preinvasion was pretty dismal. Things that happened
> there are starting to come out and I expect to find more
> evidence of sheltering of terrorists by Saddam in the
> future.

Zarqawi entered Iraq after the war. Saddam Husseign did not tolerate anything in his own country except his own absolute rule.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. *Post war* investigations by the U.S. Congress in association and *post war* investigations by the British government have both concluded that there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the war.

But there are now. They're now crawling out of the woodwork. Most of these aren't terrorists that existed prior to the war. They've been mobilized *because* of the war.

Tell me. Were you also one of the people who thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911?

PS - The war is lost. Get used to it. One way or another you'll be confronting that fact.

Posted by: James Lloyd | Aug 30, 2005 11:58:28 AM

> And regarding your amusing threat of lynching, who are
> you kidding? The left couldn't coordinate a lynching if
> they tried.

Bush is one of most spectacularly failed presidents in a very, very long time. It won't be the left that lynches him.

Posted by: James Lloyd | Aug 30, 2005 12:03:01 PM

> Zarqawi entered Iraq after the war. Saddam Husseign > did not tolerate anything in his own country except > his own absolute rule.

Blatantly untrue. Several sources have Zarqawi receiving medical aid after being wounded in Afghanistan prior to Iraq's liberation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/27/iraq/main551246.shtml

>Post war* investigations by the U.S. Congress in >association and *post war* investigations by the >British government have both concluded that there were >no terrorists in Iraq prior to the war.

Blatantly untrue. Present me a link to a report by the US or British .gov where it is unmistakeably says there were ZERO terrorists in Iraq pre invasion.

> Were you also one of the people who thought that >Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911?

No, I'm one of the people who thought Saddam needed to go after the Gulf war.

Posted by: SGT Thomas | Aug 30, 2005 8:06:03 PM

> Present me a link to a report by the US or British .gov
> where it is unmistakeably says there were ZERO
> terrorists in Iraq pre invasion.

Don't play silly games. Present me a link to a report by the US or British govt. that says there are ZERO terrorists in the US prior to 911. Present me a link that says there were no terrorists in London prior to 7/7.

Let's just assume that there were a couple of terrorists in Iraq before the war, just to put it on an equal footing with the US and Britain. So, we send 1,800 troops to their deaths to catch a couple of terrorists? We maim 15,000 troops to catch a couple of terrorists? We get distracted by Iraq and let the global terrorist leader walk free?

Saddam Hussein was the supreme dictator of Iraq. He did not want or need terrorists operating in his country. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the war.

The war was a lie. It is a disaster for our country. It has provided a *breeding* ground (not a *meeting* ground) for terrorists. It was conceived, planned and run by incompetents. It is supported by an ever decreasing number of minority idiots.

Posted by: Pat Goodall | Aug 31, 2005 2:57:57 PM

Thank you for your kind words of support in your 8/27/05 article about Crawford, Tx. Someone Emailed me your website about your comments. Please visit www.lesttheybeforgotten.org & Please pass it on to others of like minds. Sincerely,
Take Care & Keep The Faith...
Gregg Garvey
Proud Father & Humbled by His Service & Sacrifice:
Sgt. Justin Wrisley Garvey KIA 20/7/03 Tal Afar, Iraq
187th INF 101st Airborne (Air Assault) "RAKKASANS"

Posted by: gregg garvey | Oct 12, 2005 4:47:06 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.