Thank you Mr. Grant, for your service to our Country.

You, as well as Casey Sheehan, will be honored and remembered.

You are absolutely correct regarding Ms. Sheehan.

One could only wonder, how Casey Sheehan would react to his mother's lack of respect for our
President, and Commander-in-Chief.

Thanks again, for your service to our country.

TM

"Our men and women are all volunteers who are striving to help the oppressed people of both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as hopefully deterring more terrorist acts in our country."

Yeah, the same way the war in Vietnam prevented the Communists from invading America? How does anyone expect that providing free training and recruiting material for terrorist organizations worldwide do anything to deter them?

"We need to finish the job and not let the lost lives of Americans go in vain."

I'm really glad we didn't use that reasoning in Vietnam. We'd still be there, losing lives and trying to remove all plant life from the region.

Eric,

If I were in charge you would be banned.

Boy. How un-American can you get?

Welcome Home, Brother.

Unfortunately here my brother, you will be spat on, shouted at, have screemed obsenities hurled at you as well as other garbage for making your views know. Only a few truly appreciate the fact that you have decended into the bowels of hell and returned, the others despise you for it. I say again, welcome home, for I too have walked in your boots.

I respect Mr. Grant in that he did what he felt he should do, for whatever reasons they were.

I find one flaw in what he states in his "Counterpoint." That flaw being; "I am a pacifist and a peace-loving individual who hates war, all wars, but sometimes we have to draw a line in the sand. Iraq is one of those places."

In this statement, Mr. Grant calls himself one thing and then totally disregards what he classifies himself to be. When he used the word "but," he nullified the first part of his statement.

If Mr. Grant hates all war, then he would be in support of what Cindy Sheehan is doing and supporting her efforts to have the US Armed Forces removed from Iraq.

One cannot be a pacifist and "a peace-loving individual who hates war, all wars," and then say that sometimes "a line has to be drawn." those two statements nullify one another.

A true pacifist despises all war, regardless of the reason.

I only hope that if Mr. Grant reads this response to his letter that he will ponder what I have written for the context, not the writer or the writers view.

"Unfortunately here my brother, you will be spat on, shouted at, have screemed obsenities hurled at you as well as other garbage for making your views know. Only a few truly appreciate the fact that you have decended into the bowels of hell and returned, the others despise you for it. I say again, welcome home, for I too have walked in your boots."

What are you talking about?

Mr. P, Me thinks you are painting with a might broad brush and making some sweeping generalizations. This expressed negativity is not your usual fair-minded way of dealing with conflict. What gives?

Mr P is a veteran and knows where the letter writer has been. He has been to a couple of "homecomings" himself and has been treated mmmm...shall we say "disrespectfully" by the anti-war crowd.
Good letter,Mr. Gant.

"President Bush did send us there based on false information about WMD....."

....guess he shouldn't have paid attention to what these folks said, huh?

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

This Cindy Sheehan is a role model for all parents of those fighting overseas.

I applaud her actions and wish her well, and I believe her son would be very proud of his mom demanding answers from 'the man with no plan' Bush.

The ones that are against her are just mad because they understand this war is heading into a brick wall with no end in sight.

operation ceasefire

I'll be there, will you?

What possible problem could Mr. Gant have with a grieving mother trying to understand why it was necessary for her son to die? I am deeply concerned thatMr. Gant acknowledges our country is caught in a war conceived under false pretenses, that thousands of our young men and women are committed to crushing a whole country because one powerful man wanted revenge on a small-time dictator, but he speaks out against a mother in mourning. Mrs. Sheehan's son was lied to about why he was going to Iraq. We were all deceived into thinking the United States was once again saving the world from a rising evil. Has Mr. Gant forgotten that our (his & my) generation was lied to about the Vietnam conflict? Isn't he angry that he is permanently disabled and his buddies killed because Lyndon Johnson didn't know how to get out of a war he knew couldn't be won? Mr. Johnson's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, admitted in the mid-90s that the administration knew that conflict was hopeless and yet continued to send thousand of men and women to their deaths. Knowing that does not diminish Mr. Gant's service or the sacrifices made by those of us who lost loved ones in that conflict. But it was wrong, plain and simple.
Isn't Mr. Gant angry that thousands of present-day Americans are being maimed or killed by another lie? We were lied to and it's still wrong. These men and women are being sent into a war that has no purpose, but that does not diminish their honorable service. It's not Mrs. Shehan's fault that this president is clueless about their sacrifices, and believe me, he is truly without compassion. Anyone with compassion would not hesitate to speak to a mother who has given so much. Mr. Gant should learn the difference between "supporting the troops" and "supporting the war". Mrs Sheehan has a right, and we all have a duty as US citizens, to question and protest decisions and/or actions that diminish the reputation of our country. In 3 years, this president has tainted that which took 200+ years to establish, a country that could be counted on to be fair and honest, that stood on the side of what's right. That's what I'm really angry about. Mrs. Sheehan has earned the right to speak out.

Mr. Grant, first of all I would like to say that your service to the United States of America is truly appreciated by many - including myself. It takes a strong and courageous person to do such a task.

I am against this war for many reasons, some of which Ms. Sheehan has represented and some of my own personal reasons.

I wish GW had had the sense to learn from his father. His Dad had had the chance to go further but here is what he wrote in "A World Transformed," written in 1998. GW's Dad explains why, after they liberated Kuwait, they did not carry on the mission to Baghdad......

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."

That passage seems to portray an accurate picture of what has happened in Iraq - besides the "immediate" collapse of the coalition of the willing. That has gone much slower ultimately culminating in Britain recently stating they will start pulling their troops out.

When GW met with Cindy, he met with many others. He went to meet with these grief stricken families and wore a smile as part of his attire. He asked who was being honored and would not even call Ms. Sheehan by her name, but rather by an unmannerly "Mom".

Ms. Sheehan's son was lied to. They told him that he would not see war in Iraq. They promised he would not be fighting. He promised his Mom that he would be safe because they promised him he would be.

Ms. Sheehan can not now do anything for her son but she can do something for everyone else that has a son, daughter, father or mother there. She can demand accountability.

It would seem GW has seen fit that it is a government run by and for the neocons and NOT the people. Representative Connors delivered a petition to the White House and it had over 500,000 signatures on it. It asked GW for accountability on what it meant to fix the intelligence.

GW has seen fit to just ignore it. Ignore papers that say he brought us into a false war with his lies and asking him to explain. I can not help but think that if all were perfectly innocent then he would have gotten up in front of the nation the very next day to explain what a big mistake it had been.

These are serious charges that undermine everything that has been to to us and all actions that have happened abroad. One could argue that the accusations board on accusing him of treason and that it is serious enough that he should have acted swiftly to denounce the accusations. I can only think of one reason why he would not address such a serious charge - he lied about the reasons to go to war.

If our men and women are over there then they deserve to be protected at all costs. They are not allowed to speak out and express dis-satisfaction. There must be someone to speak up and address such an atrocity. They are the bravest of the brave and if they have been fraudulently put in danger then we must fight for them as they have volunteered to fight for us.

Throughout history all governments eventually end up being accountable at one time or another. I do not think it unreasonable to ask for an explanation when such serious charges are on the table.

Mr. Grant, I hope you will feel as I do. I hope you feel that if these courageous men and women may have been put in danger and sacrificed their lives for lies then we must know because they deserve better than that. I hope you feel we must ask GW to answer so that we may get to the bottom of this. Surely, not to ask for an answer would be to not care whether they were lied into a war and it would be withdrawing our support for men and women who have made the greatest of sacrifices.

And Christina blathers on...yada yada yada...same pathetic lies and distortions she sadly believes are the truth.
Christina, I feel sorry for your empty life.
Maybe when you grow up you'll lose those rose colored glasses and see how the real world works.

Sir, Mr. Georgie boy, I was addressing Mr. Grant. I thought I had made that clear in my response.

I do not call you a liar (saying I am spreading pathetic lies) and I do not put you down (saying I am blathering on). I am not sure what part you thought were lies. Did you think GW's father was lying? Did you doubt my sincerity in wanting GW to give us an answer for such serious charges?

Sir, a lesson in manners, if I may. If you truly feel sorry for someone you do not put them down. When you put them down it makes your words seem hollow. I ask that I respect you as I did not mistreat you in any regard.

I did go way out of bounds, with Trish, in another post, but I also asked her forgiveness in a public post. The least we can do is be civil toward each other. We share a community and therefore are neighbors. I will give you the same respect I ask of you. Thank you.