I said I want the president to explain what was the noble cause that my son died in, because that's what he said the other day when those 14 marines were killed. He said their families can rest assured that their sons and daughters died for a noble cause. And I said, "What is that noble cause?"

yeah, how awful. she wants to know what noble cause is that claimed her son. Something Bush could never answer. There is nothing noble about this war or this presidency.

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Casey died fighting Muslim terrorists who have repeatedly made clear that they want to kill us all, man, woman and child. If killing mass-murderers to help protect our nation against them isn't a noble cause, what is? Cindy Sheehan has shown herself to be on the side of these murderers with her bigoted Israel-bashing and support for the bloody "Palestinian" Arabs (actually Jordanians). I have no sympathy for this hypocritical bitch whatsoever: she obviously doesn't give a damn about her son. She just wants to make a big show of herself, and now she has what she wants. For that, her well-earned reward will be to join Saddam and Osama and all of her friends in Hell when she dies.

"I have no sympathy for this hypocritical bitch whatsoever....her well-earned reward will be to join Saddam and Osama and all of her friends in Hell when she dies."

Hey --That's EXACTLY what Jesus would say!

I understand that some people argue that the reasons not to invade Iraq outweighed the reasons to do so. But those people, including Ms. Sheehan, should still admit that the cause is a noble cause and to quit now would not accomplish anything. The cause includes, but is not limited to, enforcing UN Resolution 1441, attempting to prevent another 9/11, and facilitating the transition to democracy in Iraq. Very well expressed, Pooch.

Thanks John, and thank you to the anonymous posters who slug it out in the comment section. It's better to be up front with your identity. Whether agreeing or disagreeing with me, I respect the desire to post an opinion. I posted this on www.debategate.com (at the 3 Dead Horses Saloon) and it has been a hot topic all weekend. As I pointed out there, I do have sympathy for Ms. Sheehan. She has given, whatever her POV, a heavy sacrifice to the cause of freedom. I do not agree with her continued protest, but while she is not immune to criticism because of ther Gold Star mother status, she is also not immune to sympathy because of her protester status. Thank to all.

VIRUS WARNING: I DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS SITE, BUT MY AV SOFTWARE DETECTED AN ATTEMPT TO INSTALL A VIRUS WHILE I WAS TYPING THE LAST POST. I WAS NOT ON ANY OTHER SITE AT THE TIME AND I AM NOT ON A NETWORK. USERS MAY WANT TO CHECK THEIR OWN AV PROTECTION.

To quit now or later will make no difference. None at all. Do you seriousily think things will improve with less troops? How naive. Cindy lost her son in a lost cause, but Bush and his minions don't care, and couldn't be made to care no matter what she, or anyone else does. They lie to get us into this war, and they've lied constantly about "progress" ever since. Noble cause, lost cause, both the same thing to this administation.

If Bush could stay on message, maybe the parents of the deceased in this pointless war, would know why their loved ones have died. As Bush points out, he needs his five week vacation and nothing will stop him. Just like nothing stopped him from invading Iraq.

What difference would it make for Bush to say anything? His critics (such as you) have made clear that they'll call anything he says a lie, regardless of what it is. Bush could point you to several fascinating articles the Weekly Standard has recently run about what the documents in Iraq reveal about a direct connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, but you wouldn't bother to read them. He could also point you to the progress that we have indeed made in Iraq, but one notices that you have already dismissed this as more "lies."

Why answer a bunch of cowards, traitors, and liars who'll only accuse you of lying and refuse to listen to your answers? The MSM has already discredited itself with its false documents, constant blackout of any good news from Iraq, and nearly constant scandal-mongering (all of which continues to fall flat on its face). As with the rest of your kind (such as Cindy Sheehan), dude, you obviously don't understand the issues and don't want to understand them. Therefore, you need to STFU.

I am highly impressed that, even with all of the negative comments and unfortunate (but expected) flaming back and forth, the voting was really honest. I had four people decide that the song was not at all funny and worth overall only a one. Yet even they gave honest marks in pacing, thus avoiding a gratuitous "1's" attack. I think that makes the point better than all ones - which would look petty . I also see that none other than the great William of the house of Tong has decided to tackle this tune as well. I will have to see how he handled it from the other side of the aisle. Thanks to all who voted and debated.

The URL in which Cindy Sheehan says a former friend doctored an email is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/camp-casey-day-12_b_5830.html­ This specter who is according to her, a “former friend” and just happens to be anti-Israel, is of course never named. I am under the impression that this person is none other than Cindy Sheehan herself. Also if you will notice David Dukes is supporting her all the way. Dukes just wrote an article entitled ” Why Cindy Sheehan is Right” its full of the usual anti-semitic invective that he has perfected over the years. Here are some quotes fron David Dukes article. David Dukes�" ” Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.” David Dukes�"” In truth, Cindy Sheehan is absolutely right. Her son signed up in the military to defend America, not Israel.” David Dukes wrote in his August 14 article that Cindy Sheehan was right in saying that her son didn’t join the military to protect Israel. Since August 14th Cindy Sheehan says that email to Nightline was “doctored by a former friend”. Why doesnt a reporter just ask Cindy Sheehan who this mystery person is who she calls her former friend and who framed her? Also why would anyone need to frame Cindy Sheehan with anti-semitic remarks when she freely does a great job at that all on her own?

I notice the “sheehanites” love to repeat Cindy Sheehan’s redundant and what they consider to be “revelational” question , “What noble cause did Casey Sheehan die for?” Now I guess we have to return back to the elementary class of Saddam 101 to answer that question. 1. Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace in the Middle East. His aggression was only held in check by constant monitoring and economic sanctions that he then used as an excuse to starve and brutalize the people of his own country , all the while, building himself more and more elaborate and gaudy palaces. Was it “Noble” and should have Saddam been removed from power? Ask the Kurds, the Shiites, the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the Iranians, and the marsh Arabs. I think they’d all say yes. 2. Saddam brutally tortured and killed hundreds of thousands maybe even millions of innocent people. In my opinion, that alone was sufficient for getting rid of him. “Nobly sufficient” 3. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism in the Middle East and around the world. It has been well-documented that Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel . Just eliminating that incentive to kill innocent Israeli woman and children is “noble” reason alone to remove Saddam. I know Cindy Sheehan is cringing about that one. 4. Terror groups associated with Al Qaeda were operating within Iraq in terrorist training camps such as Salman Pak before the war, and had been funded, at least in part, by the Iraqi government. There is no direct link, other then sheltering the terrorist, between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001, but there is no doubt that Saddam was part of the larger problem of terrorism. 5. Saddam Hussein disregarded numerous United Nations resolutions, 17 in all, dealing with disarmament and inspections. His military fired anti-aircraft weapons at U.S. and U.K. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones on a daily bases, so he never lived up even to the initial cease-fire agreement that ended hostilities at the end of the first Gulf War, let alone any of other numerous resolutions by the U.N. Security Council. Any one of those violations would provide legal justification for the war. 6. The “domino effect” theory for moving the Middle East towards democracy and away from terrorism has a good chance of working, and yes that alone is a NOBLE reason to be in Iraq. Witness Libya’s recent renouncement of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Iraq itself is moving inexorably toward democratic self-rule, despite the efforts of terrorists and “dead-enders” and the “anti-war defeatest at home” to sabotage the process. If our government stays the course, we will win in Iraq and that victory is for all Iraqi’s. 7. Removing Saddam Hussein, in my view, was a major part of the larger strategy for the Middle East to move the entire region away from Islamic fundamentalism, theocracy and brutal dictatorship, which give rise to terrorism, and towards representative governments, ruled by law and respectful of individual rights, which will bring peace and stability to the whole region. Yes that is a NOBLE reason and cause to be in Iraq. The insurgents want to keep the blood flowing long enough to distract from that goal, and also so in America dissent will rise against the war in Iraq resulting in a withdrawal.

Bill, Bill, Bill(or 'William", if you really prefer) - OK, first of all - Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and no one save the Sunni's who benefited from the Baath party rule miss him a whole lot(up to 40% of the Iraqi population is comprised on Sunni's, although I am not implying that all of them supported or continue to support Hussein by any means. Nonetheless, it was foolish to expect that all of them would take their loss of preferential treatment philosophically.) Anyway, Hussein gone -Good riddance, OK. Now, without trying to refute everything you have there, let's look at #7 for a moment: You say that removing Hussein is part of a larger strategy aimed at moving the entire region away from "Islamic Fundamentalism, Theocracy, and brutal dictatorship", etc. Aside trom the "brutal dictatorship" part, which most folks would agree with, I don't see any logical connection. In fact, removing Hussein has INCREASED the possibility that Islamic Fundamentalism and Theocratic rule end up holding sway in the new Iraqi nation. The Shiites seem poised and very likely to insist on the Sharia being at least partially incorporated into the new Judicial system - which cannot be considered good news for Iraqi women who might wish to be given something resembling an equal footing to Iraqi males in the eyes of the law. Now, the question of stability remains up in the air. We all would like for that to happen, but it does not appear to be happening at this time...nor does it seem likely that Iraq will be any more stable in the forseeable future. As it stands now it seems likely that a Shiite-dominated Iraq will not be particularly friendly towards the United States and may end up drawing closer to Iran. That's enough for now, but you have other holes in your assumptions that are equally blaring.

Cindy, freedom isn't free. Your son died for his country. He wanted to fight. When you fight a war, there a strong chance that you will die in a war. War is hell and Iraq is no different. Many people disliked Lincoln during his time, but now he's considered one of the best presidents ever. Theodore Roosevelt was the same way too. Give Bush 20-50 years and we'll find out if his legacy will stand over everything or leave us with shame. LBJ and Nixon were heavily criticized with Vietnam, but at that time there was a draft. Bush may have known about how much this was was worthless, but I;m not sure, I wasn't around Bush nor around that time. He may have gotten out of it because of money, I don't know. We just want a President to criticize a lot and impeachment will equal a Political corruption so hard that it will be the downfall of America. It wouldn't be Bush's fault then, it would be the people who impeached him. You tried it with Clinton and it didn't work. There are no true leaders anymore and when one comes, he is like Jesus. He told many people what to believe and the people got upset that they crucified him. I'm not saying that Bush will be crucified, but many people right now don't know how freedom gets its place. Freedom isn't free, you have to pay for it in one way shape or form!

(yawn to these comments). But 545 to the author, who took the high rode with his/her opinions and made some cogent points (even if I disagree on some of them). (my 2 cents--Bush doesn't lie...you can't lie when you don't know what you are talking about...)