Cold Qualls Two
Remember, Gary Qualls? The bereaved parent who last week was telling Cindy Sheehan he loved her, and who this week set up a counter-protest site named after his son? [Here’s another photo of Gary Qualls and Cindy Sheehan in a moving embrace.]
And, remember how he got so indignant that the protesters at Camp Casey had “disgraceful[ly]” erected a cross bearing his son’s name as part of their roadside memorial to the fallen?
Well…I was wondering what he did with that cross. Maybe he tossed it in a dumpster. Maybe he threw it in the back of his truck and forgot about it. maybe he donated it to a homeless shelter for firewood.
All of those things crossed my mind. Surely, I reasoned, he wouldn’t hypocritically set up a SHRINE to his dead son, USING the very same cross he claimed was a “disgrace,” and “disprespectful” just a few days ago.
Now, it is entirely possible that the white wooden cross you see in this photo is a different one than the one Qualls angrily removed from the Camp Casey memorial.
But, even if it were not the exact same one, it is still mighty hypocritical and dishonest of Mr. Qualls to claim that the very same memorial set up by anti-war protesters is “disgraceful,” when he seems to think that so long as it is serving his political ends, it is perfecly respectful and reverent.
Support President Bush if you believe it is the right thing to do. Respect your son. Grieve in whatever manner you see fit. But, please do not fake outrage over a heartfelt memorial to your son, just because “the right people” didn’t establish it.
UPDATE: Now I know Qualls is a hypocritical liar. I finally found William Rivers Pitt’s account of the Qualls/Sheehan meeting last week. Here’s what he said:
“Over the weekend, as the camp prepared for the arrival of the counter-demonstrators, a huge diesel pickup truck rumbled into camp with its nose menacingly pointed towards the tents. It sat for a while, and everyone waited to see what would happen. Ann Wright, the main organizer of camp activities, finally approached the truck and met the driver. He was a father, Wright discovered, and his son had been killed in Iraq.
He did not agree with this protest, he said, but wanted to know if his son’s name was on one of the crosses in the Arlington West cemetery. Ann Wright invited the man to walk the rows of crosses and find his son’s name. They found it. Ann and the man from the truck sat down in front of the cross, wrapped their arms around each other, and wept. Later, the man shared a beer with Cindy Sheehan and told her he loved her.”
So, originally, when he saw the cross with his son’s name on it, he embraced one of the principal anti-war protesters, Ann Wright, and wept.
He didn’t pull it out of the ground, call it a disgrace and prance and preen like an asshole.
So, what explains his 180 degree turn? Politics. Pure and simple.
And the pro-Bush idiots think citing this guy HELPS their cause?
Pitt’s account, by the way, was written a week before Qualls started becoming the Anti-Sheehan.
LAST UPDATE: This is, I’m sad to say, the final nail in the coffin of Gary Quall’s credibility. Read the letter he wrote to Cindy Sheehan this week. It is full of bile, and invective.
“I stand before you, your group of protesters, your unjust and unethical supporters. I also am a parent of a Fallen Hero, Lance Corporal Louis W. Qualls. I repossessed my son€™s name and cross from your display, and I have informed you publicly to never use my son€™s name for your unjust and political agendas. I publicly asked you and your followers to cease this activity, and to respect our Fallen Hero€™s [sic], and honor them as they deserve. Our Fallen Hero€™s [sic] gave their lives for this great country, for the people of Iraq, for all people that wish for freedom, and for the world, and they have earned our due respect and honor. All of our volunteers that serve in our military service have done so own [sic] their own accord. They have put their lives on the line for our ways of life, freedom and freedoms of speech. I have had phone calls and have heard from other parents of our Fallen Hero€™s [sic] that are across this great nation, on radio stations, expressing their discontent on the use of their sons€™ and daughters€™ names on your cross display and for your political agenda. These great families are ashamed of you, your protests, and what you are trying to accomplish. You have not ever asked any great hero€™s [sic] families for permission to use their fallen hero and family names. How dare you bring your pitiful and unjust protest into my back yard of Texas, and into the front yard of President George W. Bush.”
It gets worse.
And, notice that he never mentions his previous meeting with her, where he drank beer with her, hugged her, and told her he loved her. Or about when he knelt before his son’s cross at Camp Casey and wept.
Cindy Sheehan opened up her heart to you. She gave you a shoulder to cry on. She respected you, even though you disagreed with what she was doing. And, in the end, she expressed her love for you as one grieving parent to another.
And this is how you repay her? By spitting in her face and treating her like dirt? You should be ashamed of yourself, Gary Qualls. Ask yourself if your son would be proud of what you are doing. Only you can answer that question. I hope you can live with the answer.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:58 am
What do you want to bet that nobody from the right says a thing about him doing this stuff for political reasons … and that they tell us it is about his son … But it seems that the cross was only good enough if some one from the right planted it
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:47 am
*lmao* You guys are so funny. Not everyone is cold and calculating like Cindy.
Hire Baghdad Bob he can help you.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:59 am
Mark Says: Hire Baghdad Bob he can help you
We can’t, he’s working for George W. Bush.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:22 pm
*lmao* You guys are so funny. Not everyone is cold and calculating like Cindy.
So, Gary Qualls is just an irrational nutcase? Thanks for clarifying that.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Look, this man lost his son. For whatever reason he visited Casey Camp, visited his son’s memorial and then decided through some sort of process that he didn’t want his son honored there. He asked for the cross back and may or may not have planted it in an environment that better expressed his own views for why his son died. Apparently he is receiving sort of comfort from doing this.
This man is grieving. If others want to draw attention to that to illuminate their feelings and views on this war, he’s given permission of that. So be it.
It is not our place to freeze frame and label his churning emotons. Leave him alone . . .
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:22 pm
No doubt he’s grieving, CS.
But he’s also a fucking liar. Why can’t he just say he supports Bush, and disagrees with Cindy Sheehan without the lying and the bullshit?
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:17 pm
cs, I see your point, but I’m watching him on Countdown right now, and he’s lying his ass off.
People keep trying to say Sheehan’s being used, but Qualls is spewing nothing but talking points, and luckily, Olbermann’s calling him out on the inaccuracies. I feel sorry for the guy. He seems lost.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:26 pm
What’s with the French flag?
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:43 pm
That’s the Texas State Flag, actually. Not the French flag.
BTW, is Olbermann raising any of the points I did?
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Would be willing to bet that this passage was not written by this man himself. The trauma of losing a child is very real, and it can be exploited. This poor man is having his guts twisted by administration operatives. The last thing he needs is to have invective hurled at him. It’s enough to meet him with reason. Let’s try to keep things in perspective, shall we?
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:24 pm
Man, I wish Keith had seen this before his interview tonight…. And for the safety of those around me, I’m glad I saw this AFTER the interview.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:36 pm
“But, even if it were not the exact same one, it is still mighty hypocritical and dishonest of Mr. Qualls to claim that the very same memorial set up by anti-war protesters is €œdisgraceful,€ when he seems to think that so long as it is serving his political ends, it is perfecly respectful and reverent.”
And is it not the sae with “Mother Sheehan?”
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:36 pm
“But, even if it were not the exact same one, it is still mighty hypocritical and dishonest of Mr. Qualls to claim that the very same memorial set up by anti-war protesters is €œdisgraceful,€ when he seems to think that so long as it is serving his political ends, it is perfecly respectful and reverent.”
And is it not the same with “Mother Sheehan?”
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:38 pm
No. It’s not the same Bagley. Cindy doesn’t egard Ft Qualls as “disgraceful,” and “disrespectful” to those who died in Iraq.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Here is what I think is a marvelous idea: Get those military recruiters to Fort Qualls without delay! It is a fertile field for recruitment of those pro-war men and women. ( You can be as old as 38 now, but no one would fault you if you faked your age). With those pro-war activists we might be able to enhance our military and occupy Iraq (like those in Camp Qualls want us to) for maybe the next 10 years. What do you think of that idea?
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
June,
Contact Operation Yellow Elephant. I’m sure they will like your idea. Make sure they give Gary Qualls a recruiting form so his 16=year-old son can siogn a letter of intent.
Qualls already offered him up as a sacrifice to his God, George W. Bush.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Hesiod,
” Cindy doesn€™t egard Ft Qualls as €œdisgraceful,€ and €œdisrespectful€ to those who died in Iraq. ”
For her and her supporters to use the death of some other parent’s son to further their (Sheehan’s) political agenda is disgraceful and disrespectful!
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Woops, June! Looks like they are way ahead of you.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:59 pm
bush & co. will have us fighting again soon on another front any number of places, you pick one out. the draft will be firmly in place and all the cheer leaders will be silent, enought blood will shut them up. bush will ride into the sunset. and if were still here in 25 or 30 years? will do it again.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:00 pm
For her and her supporters to use the death of some other parent€™s son to further their (Sheehan€™s) political agenda is disgraceful and disrespectful!
She’s not using tehir deaths to further her agenda. The deaths do that all by themselves.
She is honoring those who died.
The fact that her wackjob Bush-supporting enemies can’t figure this out is more of a reflection of tehir diseased minds than of anything she stands for.
Of course Gary Qualls understood that. Before the Freepers got to him. Then he started lying about how outraged he was by the memorial he knelt in front of a wept at a week earlier.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Well, the one good thing about all this is,is that it’s ripping the scab off the festering wound that Bush and company have inflicted on our nation. The sooner this wound get some sunlight and fresh air the sooner our nation will heal.
One thing that should be understood is that nobody should have to qualify to express their love and beliefs in their country. This guy Qualls seems to think that a dead soldier trumps all in the expression of what a true American is. I reject his assertions and do not excuse him through his pain.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:04 pm
“The deaths do that all by themselves.”
Would you know of their deaths….their names….if she did not publicize them. She and her supporters have hijacked the grief of the parentsof these barve sould to further their (Sheehan’s) agenda.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Would you know of their deaths€.their names€.if she did not publicize them. She and her supporters have hijacked the grief of the parentsof these barve sould to further their (Sheehan€™s) agenda.
Nope. She treated Gary Qualls with respect and caring when he sited her at Camp Casey.
And he returned the favor by spitting in her face.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:14 pm
“Would you know of their deaths€.their names€.if she did not publicize them.”
Probably not, since the president and the media have attempted to ignore those as much as possible. All, I’m certain, so as not to intrude on the families’ grief.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Hesiod,
“And he returned the favor by spitting in her face.”
To take back the memory and sacrifice of his son is to “spit in her face?”
So, I take it that Mother S can do as she wishes with the identity of the dead….after all they are not here to speak for themselves….and, certainly, the paerent of the dead cannot speak for them.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:17 pm
QrazyQat,
The names of the dead are publicized. Several were buried here in the Philadelphia area this past week. Their stories were featured on the local news.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:24 pm
The names of the dead are publicized. Several were buried here in the Philadelphia area this past week. Their stories were featured on the local news.
Then they aren;t exploiting their names down in Camp Casey, are they? If they are public knowledge, what’s the problem? Other than it makes Goerge W. Bush look like a piece of shit, that is?
If these families truly blieve their loved ones died in a noble cause, why would they get upset if anti-war protesters homor tehir sacrifice with a respectful memorial? Nobody claime dthey were anything but heroes.
Like I said, it speaks a lot more about the massive guolt these parents must be feeling that they are so desperate to snatch up any reminder that tehir son might have died for lies.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:31 pm
Hesiod,
QrazyQat, implied that the names of the dead were being hidden from the American public. I simply
pointed out that the names are, in fact, part of the public record.
Now, to use these name in pursuit of a political agenda is exploitation…especially when the survivors object.
But then again…..I do suppose that the survivors are not suitable for speaking on behalf of their dead kin…..are they?
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:18 pm
What’s wrong with having a political agenda anyway? Those of us who bother to think about anything much will have one.
Now, war dead are serious business. If war dead are not a fit subject for politics and political conflict, what is?
But all this talk of honouring the dead this way or that way is a bunch of American-style crap. As is this ‘who is more patriotic?’ game. It just obfuscates the nature of the war itself - that it is a meat grinder, grinding up these people’s children in visually unappealing ways. It also completely overlooks the vastly greater heaps of Iraqi minced meat that these people’s children are very much responsible for.
Fighting over these little white crosses is althogether quite contemptible.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:19 pm
So you mean the Left is criticizing him for changing his tune after a first meeting where tears were shed about a fallen soldier son and now making political statements about what his son would’ve wanted?
Funny, you guys have been praising Cindy for days because she did just that. And you call HIM the hypocrite.
But let me know when you find old tapes of Mr. Qualls railing against the U.S. as a country “not worth dying for” while jointly speaking with convicted terrorists at functions organized by those who advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and handing out flyers asking whether folks should support the terrorists who murdered his son.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:32 pm
She treated Gary Qualls with respect and caring when he sited her at Camp Casey.
And he returned the favor by spitting in her face.
Funny, according to Cindy Sheehan’s own words in 2004, President Bush “gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together.”
Now she’s spitting in his face with her vitriol like, “The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”
and you call Qualls the hypocrite?
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:16 am
*Jason*:
Now she€™s spitting in his face with her vitriol like, €œThe biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!€
This face-spitting notion is just a very tired metaphor. Sometimes “vitriol” turns out to be merely simple truth.
– And by the way, I think we need to begin presuming that they are going to reload the draft. So we need to begin demanding NO EXEMPTIONS.
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:26 am
Does anyone know if Jenna and Barbara Bush have quit drinking and throwing Satan-signs with their college buddies yet and joined the marines ???
(I would bet they have not.)
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:04 am
Not sure I’m comfortable with an attack on this guys character - is this really how we need to play this game?
It all leaves a bit of a nasty taste in my mouth and I can feel the moral high ground rapidly falling away from beneath our feet.
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:18 am
I saw Mr. Qualls on Olberman last night and he brought up Cindy Sheehan leaving her kids to go off war protesting. As I recall, Cindy’s youngest, Andrew, is 21. It was very whiny and selfish of Andrew to tell the media his mother should come home because they needed her at home. This is the chance of her lifetime to make a big difference. I doubt she would try to hold Andrew back from any opportunities.
On the other hand, Mr. Qualls is a single parent and has a son who is only 16 and its strange for him to make this an issue.
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:24 am
Funny, according to Cindy Sheehan€™s own words in 2004, President Bush €œgave us, the gift of happiness, of being together.€
She wasn’t talking about Bush when she said that. She was talking about meeting the other families in Seattle.
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:47 am
Gary Qualls and Cindy Sheehan have both suffered terrible losses. They have both shared common feelings of heart ache and depression over their losses. I am in no way minimizing their feelings in my blog entries; however, I do not agree with how Cindy has gone about grieving for her son. She had political agendas way before her son died. The picture that you show above are simply two parents who have lost loved ones and are comforting the other– it is the natural part of being human and grieving.. God says to comfort one another.. this is what they are doing. It doesn’t show that Gary Qualls is lying about anything, it just shows that he cares about a person who lost a son as he did! This issue is bigger than two parents who lost their children. It is about a woman that has gone nutso and used her son’s memory to promote her own views and angenda. I watched Casey’s father on the The O’Riely Factor on Fox News, he said that he had custody of his son for most of his life and Casey disagreed with his mother’s political views and they were at constant odds politically. Cindy had her own political views before her son even died– she was against the war and Casey was for it and supported Bush according to his own father who lived with Casey and raised him most of his life. The father would know his son’s political views and beliefs. I believe the father that his son died for a cause that he believed in. Casey supported Bush and the war according to his father.
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:23 am
Jennifer,
“The married soldiers had their families to see them off, and all I had was a call home the night before. Mom cried her eyes out over the phone, not the first time it happened either,€ [Casey Sheehan] wrote.
In another letter, dated March 31, 2004, Casey had arrived in Iraq.
€œHey Family. I€™ve finally made to Iraq. Luckily for us, there was no threat to our convoy. How is everyone doing? I wish I could be home for Jane€™s graduation,€ he wrote.”
Casey’s last two letters home can be read, in their entirety, here.
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:26 am
Cindy met with Bush, raved how great he was and now has a 190 degreee position yet she defends herself by saying that over time she changed her mind as she looked back in retrospect.
I dont see why Qualls doesnt deserve the same consideration.
As to the cross, maybe he didnt fuuly grasp the purpose of why it was there originally. Mabye he doesnt object to a memorial of his son, he just objects to said memorial being a stunt to produce sympathy.
Either way if Cindy’s supporters can claim she should only be evaluated on the now, he deserves the same consideration.
it is obvious there are two sides to this dispute. Let the two of them reconcile it and let those who support each side rally, in good freedom of speech tradition.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:08 am
Cindy met with Bush, raved how great he was and now has a 190 degreee position yet she defends herself by saying that over time she changed her mind as she looked back in retrospect.
A) That’s not what happened.
B) Even if it did, it happened over a year ago, before the Deulfer report established there were no WMDs in Iraq, before the 9/11 Commission established there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, and the Dowing Street memos whcih established that Bush cooked the books to create a pretext for war with saddam.
Qualls’ 180 came after only a few days.
Plus, Condy never denied meeting with Bush. Qualls acts as though he ever met Cindy, let alone hugged her and old her he loved her.
Rampant dishonesty.
Sorry, troll. You lose.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:10 am
As to the cross, maybe he didnt fuuly grasp the purpose of why it was there originally. Mabye he doesnt object to a memorial of his son, he just objects to said memorial being a stunt to produce sympathy.
That’s entirely possible. Given his rather dimwitted performance on Olbermann last night, he doesn’t seem to be the Swiftest Boat in the Mekong.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 am
And the haters will just keep on hating. Those of you who “hate” Cindy Sheehan– regardless (Jennifer) of your pretty qualifying language about feeling sympathy for her, before going on to trash her– might step back for a moment and ask yourselves why. Why are you so threatened by a simple question about what we’re doing in Iraq? Why do you see evil in the call to end war? What is your stake in this game?
I do not feel comfortable trashing Mr. Qualls, no matter how much I disagree with him. However, I don’t think it’s fair for Cindy Sheehan’s detractors to insist that she is somehow being exploited by the so-called left, while refusing to consider that the people YOU agree with are being exploited by your side.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:41 am
Qualls is simply a not very bright Bushdupe if he believes his son died for anything more than Bush’s vanity and stupidity as well as for the murky purposes of the Neocon cabal that pushed the war. I think these people who have lost sons or daughters but are unable to understand the very unpleasant facts about why take refuge in a kind of mindless patriotism, telling themselves that their sacrifice is for some great cause. It makes them feel better but it is sadly an immense lie. A feel-good lie that they tell to themselves.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:09 am
A) That€™s not what happened.
Sure it is. Go back like I did and read the Vacaville reporter story June 24th, 2005.
B) Even if it did, it happened over a year ago, before the Deulfer report established there were no WMDs in Iraq, before the 9/11 Commission established there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, and the Dowing Street memos whcih established that Bush cooked the books to create a pretext for war with saddam.
If you read her comments in the whole article she makes it clear she was anti war then, and that we were there for the wrong reasons. But she and her husband make it clear they decided against that confrontation then, because it was appropriate. So it wasnt the informatoin that changed her.
When she says:
“I now know he’s sincere about wanting reedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.” . . .
it seems she had a different view coming out.
Maybe then the memos convinced her otherwise, its apparently possible.
But those comments of her’s don’t jive with her comments that he was a callous bastard during the meeting.
Qualls€™ 180 came after only a few days.
Plus, Condy never denied meeting with Bush. Qualls acts as though he ever met Cindy, let alone hugged her and old her he loved her.
I dont know all the story details so i will do the responsible thing and research it.
But my point stands. If she can change her focus so can he.
If he objects to the use of his son’s name on a cross to protest the war, it doesnt preclude him from making a hearefelt memorial of his own. There is no connection.
Sorry, troll. You lose.
Im not a troll, I just have an opinion, and I was linked here by one of your readers.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:11 am
I might add that we have witnessed all this before at the time of Vietnam. People who lost family then could not face the brutal fact that their sacrifice was for naught and that they were tools used by the government for stupid ends. And sadly enough Reagan, who was in many ways a good President, told a vast lie when he referred to the Vietnamese war as a “noble cause.” It was nothing of the kind. It was purely and simply a stupid mistake that cost the US 50,000 dead and gained us NOTHING.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:17 am
I love how righties always accuse the left of profiting off the dead but don’t say anything when Bush invokes the fallen of 9/11 to justify this war based on a pack of Lies. I love it how they say we’re disrespecting the dead, but don’t say anything on what Larry Northern, a Vietnam War vet who earned a Purple Heart did to the crosses.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:05 pm
I saw this guy on TV last night, and he was dumb as dirt! I don’t have any respect for people that sacrafice their children because they are unable to admit they were wrong!
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Since Qualls is a Bush supporter, isn’t it obvious that he was just taking the opportunity to feel up Ann Wright and didn’t actually believe anything he was saying?
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Let’s not trash this guy - I just feel sorry for him. Like anybody would, he suffers grief for his lost child. His grief has blinded him to the truth about this war, and all wars. Let’s not get angry at this man, let’s pity him. He was obviously coached on what to write in that letter - the pro-war folks just got to him and told him that they really feel his pain and people like Cindy are the enemy. Before the letter came out, he met Cindy and they shared their stories like two parents in mourning for their lost children. Now he spews all this hate in “his” letter - something happened, someone got to him. Again, he deserves our compassion and pity, not our hate. Military families take refuge in this Great Lie in every generation and every war. Pity them, too - altho they’ll swear they don’t want or need our pity. Pity them anyway.
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:19 pm
One point I’d like to make: A dead soldier is not necessarily a hero. If you die in combat, you were DOING YOUR JOB. Being paid to fight in a war does not make you a hero. Doing your job does not make you a hero. Dying in the line of duty does not make you a hero.
A hero is someone who does something brave and unselfish when it’s NOT their job to do so. A soldier who takes a bullet in the front line is not a hero. A soldier who takes a bullet because he threw himself in front of a small child IS a hero. A soldier who gets shot down in a helicopter is not a hero. A soldier who crashes a helicopter full of explosives to avoid crashing it into a civilian home IS a hero.
Dying in the line of duty is not automatic hero status. Mostly, it’s just sad and mostly unnecessary.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Go back like I did and read the Vacaville reporter story June 24th, 2005.
Alternatively, go and read the Vacaville Reporter update saying that Sheehan has been perfectly consistent, and that imputing differently is wrong.
August 24th, 2005 at 1:23 am
My condolences to Gary Qualls.
It is a terrible thing to have bury a child. It must be a truly horrific experience having to do so knowing that you and your child’s sacrifice was primarily motivated by Lies and Greed. It must be soul-wrenching to be unable to comprehend that being angry at the Liars and Thieves does NOT diminish the memory of the dead child.
You have my sympathy Mr. Qualls.
August 24th, 2005 at 8:04 am
Please. I can show you a picture of Cindy Sheehan kissing the President. Would you just as quick to dismiss her? Mr. Quall’s has sympathy for her loss and it is within that vein he hugged her and offered her support. As one berieved parent to another. He in no way supports her protest, he does support her loss and her son’s sacrifice. So you come to my blog and say he has no credibility? You are presenting your slanted opinion as to his credibility? Get real, he has just as much, if not more, credibility than Cindy Sheehan. At least he did not attend a function in support of Lynne Stewart convicted of helping Omar Abdul Rahman the ringleader of the first trade center bombing.
August 24th, 2005 at 8:05 am
Wilder is completely right. The soldiers killed in Iraq are not heroes in any sense. What they are, sadly enough, are pathetic and helpless tools used by this lying administration to execute its idiotic invasion and occupation of Iraq. They have died in vain. And however much you try to glorify and sugar coat it, that is the nitty gritty of it. Martyrs for Bush. And that is a very miserable thing to be.
August 24th, 2005 at 11:00 am
“They have died in vain. And however much you try to glorify and sugar coat it, that is the nitty gritty of it. Martyrs for Bush. And that is a very miserable thing to be.”How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? … and then have that mistake use your death to further his own political agenda?We were sold this war, we were bamboozled as well as the best side-show barker or thimble-rig operator could do, as well as the oiliest used-car salesman ever did; we bought this lemon and can’t sell it back. We were lied to, misled, and screwed over, by the man in the White House and his madministration, by the press, even by the ‘intelligence’ services we pay to get it right (though cherry-picking by the Bush crew plays a big part in that failure).The dead are the price we’ve paid, a price higher than the best consequence of the invasion that they promised, and unimaginably higher than the actual worth of this mess of pottage, this dog’s breakfast, this tearing asunder of countries, of alliances, of our soul.The war was never worth one man’s life. It wasn’t worth 1850 lives, and it most certanly isn’t worth another single life!
Ed Drone
August 24th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I am saddened to read vitrol directed at either Ms. Sheehan or Mr. Qualls. This conversation should not be about either of them, it should be about the war in Iraq.
My youngest son’s 12th birthday was just a few days ago, we took some of his friends to a resteraunt to celebrate and then I took my sons and a smaller group of their friends to a high school football game. Those who do not have children may think of this as quite mundane, but I highly doubt either Mr. Qualls or Ms. Sheehan think so. I doubt that I could handle their situation as well as either of them are.
Both have made a terrible sacrifice, and our conversation should not be about them, or their personal strengths or shortcomings. Our conversation should be about why we, as a society, have required that sacrifice. I personally believe that we would be a lot more willing to follow our leaders if our leaders told us where we were going, why we are going there, and what we would gain from the trip. Personally, I find the answers given so far unsatisfying, but let’s talk about that, and not Mr. Qualls or Ms. Sheehan.
August 25th, 2005 at 7:10 am
You people slay me. The troops support this action, a bit more than 80% of them. You do not support it, fine but they do. You love to say you support the troops but not the mission, what a load of crap. By coming out against the mission you are disenfranchising the troops, and making the terrorists bolder. It is your lack of resolve that stregthens them. It used to be in this country that partisan bickering stopped at the border, you could learn something from the greatest generation.
August 25th, 2005 at 8:07 am
Well, Fred. I keep hearing that argument, but I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that the insurgents in Iraq are “emboldened.” by peaceful protesters.
Your argument could, logically, be made about ANY criticism of the Gvt during war time. Whihc, in effect, pretty much shuts down all dissent or disagreement, in strak vuiolation of our freedoms and our constitution.
Also, do 80% of our troops support the Iraq war? I seriously doubt it, Not even 80% of them voted for Bush in the last election.
There have been very few, if any, verifiable and scientific polls of our troops on their attitude toward the Iraq war.
The fact of the matter is, if the war was jsutified and being competently run, the amount of dissent would be minimal.
The fact that it is now more unpopular than Vietnam was at a similar stage is evidence that Bush fucked up royally.
Those who oppose this war, and want to get out of it, are just as patriotic, if not moreso, than those who don’t. We see the war as being a huge unnecessary drain on our national security at a time when we cannot afford it.
The claim that we have to stay in Iraq because it is the central front on the War on terror is like the story of the boy who murdered both his parents, and then pleadede for mercy from the Court because he was an orphan.
It’s the “central front” because George W. Bush is the fucking idiot who made it that way in the first place. It wasn’t until we invaded.
August 25th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Why is it wrong for Cindy Sheehan to use her son’s name to keep others from dying? Are those of you who condemn her so intent on killing people that any form to keep people from dying makes you angry?
Why is wrong for her to try to stop the war that Bush says keeps the terrorists out of our country all the while sending our troops over to be sacrificial lambs?
Why is it wrong for Cindy Sheehan to try to stop the war in which Bush says was begun at 9/11 despite the fact it was not the Iraq’s and despite the fact now that the war has killed three times the innocent civilians in Iraq than was killed in NYC on 9/11?
August 26th, 2005 at 10:24 am
Hey,
I read the diesel truck account right when it came out as well as followed the Quall story but I never saw any indication that they were the same person. There’s no proof here either. How do you know they are the same guy? Do you have a quote from Anne saying os or something because I haven’t seen a thing to link the two stories.
August 26th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Hey Moonbat,
Bill Quick exposed your scummy hate mail on his blog and you revealed yourself for the screwball terrorist lover that you are. Maybe you can catch the red-eye to Crawford and do a Clinton on old Cindy. Don’t forget the cigar…I hear she really likes cigars.
August 26th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
If you go to www.fortqualls.com and go to the blog, you will see that it is hosted by inic.org. Going to their homepage, you will see that besides being for sale, it has links to goosefraba?, gunfinder, greasy chicks, and native nazi! Nice friends for this guy.
August 27th, 2005 at 3:42 am
It seems highly likely to me that this man’s sudden change of heart was the result of his being contacted and coopted by one of these phony “grassroots” republican groups — You know, something with a name like “Concerned Texas Parents for Patriotism” that turns out to be wholly owned, operated and funded by a combination of Brent Bozell, the Heritage Institute and various former PR buddies of Karl Rove.
August 27th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
man, we went through this kind of shit during Vietnam. the people that protested the war comforting the people for the war comforting the people that protested the war. one big beautiful cluster fuck with the people that STARTED the fucking war standing in the background and debating and debating and debating. when are we ever going to wise up and realize that the people that START the war aren’t the people that DIE in the war? This is bullshit, people. Wake the fuck up!
It’s not PATRIOTISM ro commit suicide in this fashion! It’s cannon fodder for cowards!
August 29th, 2005 at 7:46 am
It’s Qualls.
Cindy made mention of the incident, as well as others, but didnt specificaly name him. But, he’s also the only one who could fit the description, as he was identified as the lone man to accept her invitation to meet with her by the AP.
Cindy also says there was only one man who accepted. Then she said she “hugged” him, which of course is confirmed the the AP photos. Obviously, seeing later photos of Qualls, they correctly identified him.
The comment about them exchanging “I love you’s” is also credible. Especially when you consider it was a contemporary report of the meeting, a week before Qualls became the Anti-Sheehan and started running his attack ads.
Also, the same man who was described as breaking down at his son’s cross at Camp Casey was also identified by William Rivers Pitt (who was AT Camp Casey at the time, blogging reports), as the same man who Cindy later hugged, etc.
The fact is, in case any REPORTERS are reading this, you have an obligation to check it out.
Try not to make excuses for being lazy and unprofessional on this message thread. It’s emnarassing.
August 29th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Alright, I’ll admit these articles have changed my views on the Camp Casey/Fort Qualls debate. I no longer support Fort Qualls and its leader, and I should have done a lot more research into it before deciding a standing. I do not quite catch your definition of a troll, I was led to believe it is a person who randomly appears on your site and says something either stupid or irrelavent to gain attention. From your use of it, I am going to guess I’m wrong on that, and if you could clarify that it’d be much appreciated. I would also like to know, since someone pointed out this site to me in a counter to my own views, does that still leave me as a troll? Again, I am just curious.
Just to note, someone used this as an arguement against myself and I’m glad they did, thanks for pointing out my error. It’s not so much a lack of research, it is more I just could not find anything about it due to a severe lack of media coverage on Qualls.
As I said before, I no longer support Qualls, but I do still disagree on certain points with Sheehan. For starters, a popular belief that pulling out of Iraq is a grand idea. I have two main points on this one.
Due to a lack of media coverage in the progress of Iraq, I can see where this is a confusing thing. As many people who have died (The last count I saw placed it at around 1,860 soldiers), you can not deny there have been many improvements. Not only has Saddam Hussein been ousted, which is a plus for everyone (I can see that being taken in a bad way, seeing as the country has been destabilized due to it, but generally a dictator out of power is always a good thing), but publican education is up by 80%, 3.5 million kids have been immunized, nearly all hosipitals are running, they are enjoying a repaired water system, and more girls are attending the schools. Though there are misleading and wrong facts, such as the number of Iraqi guards and soldiers aiding Americans, the sewer system has been fixed, and the electrical power has only just passed pre-war levels, the pros far outweigh the cons in this case. Whether you believe me or not, you can Fact Check these anywhere you want. I will not say they are 100% accurate, but I did go through two or three sources to get these and prove them amongst themselves.
The second front I take is on historical grounds, so this may not appeal to many of you. For this, I would like to use Afghanistan in this example. For all those who know, Afghanistan had been under Soviet occupency before the U.S. stepped in to oust them. Our soldiers liberated Afghanistan, and the plan had been made to employ deomcracy, however, this was more a blow to strike against communism. As we all know, the Soviet Union collapsed off of bankruptcy, and the United States lost interest quickly in Afghanistan. They set a mock government in place, which was quickly ousted by the Taliban dynasty after the Americans had left. Skip ahead a few years to the point where the Taliban began to support the al Queda faction, and fast forward against to al Queda’s attack on the United States Pentagon, the Twin Towers, and a field in Pennslyvania due to the brave actions of a group of Americans who attempted to re-take their plane, the one believed to be heading for the White House.
I hate to point out the obvious points I tried to make there, but here they are: The withdrawl of American soldiers BEFORE establishing a stable govenments in the area led to the 9/11 attacks. Is there hard-core evidence? No, but it leaves little doubt and could easily be proven if Osama bin Laden is ever captured.
The second point I have against Cindy Sheehan and Camp Casey is the fact of her wanting to meet personally with President Bush, whom shehad met and had the chance to discuss with him before. Correct me if I’m wrong, but how many times has a president gone out of his way to talk to a single protestor with no political bearing? If it has happened, then I’ll be sorely shocked but still scoff at Sheehan’s attempts and her reasons. As far as I’ve read, Sheehan has only called to talk to him becuase she lost a son and doesn’t agree with the war. Now I would like to know, how does that give her any more right than anyone else who has lost a family member, or better yet, any other citizen? All to debate with the President on a view he has already said that he understands, but will not follow through with it.
Again, these are only my takes and I’ll be glad to hear you’re counter-opinion if you feel to offer one.
August 29th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
BTW, Nuts…
Cindy did accept that debate offer. Just to update you.
You might want to pst a follow up to your original post saying you now don’t support Gary Qualls.
As for the war in Iraq, I have a post up at MYDD which addresses that issue.
August 30th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4822109
This is the Cindy Sheehan interview with Neil Conhan on NPR Monday afternoon Aug 29. Following her was Qualls himself. When I heard it I did not know he had flip flopped. Then I read the William Rivers Pitt article.
If now Qualls for whatever reason does not want his son’s name to be used by anyone he doesn’t want to, I think it best to respect his wishes offer sympathy and get beyond and free of those not dedicated to the cause. There is no need for his son’s name or any name unless asked to. Take the names off the crosses execpt those who ask. The image of 2000 crosses wo names are just as effective and can’t raise contention that takes away from our Purpose.
August 30th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
I feel, REGARDLESS of Sheehan or Qualls, for the current moment we are stuck in Iraq. The important thing is support our soilders, our nation, our leader. I am neither pro-BUSH or anti-BUSH. I didn’t vote either big ticket party, however, that is who our nation chose as a whole. Instead of arguing politics like two year olds, maybe we should pull together for a solution. I wouldn’t give media attention to either Sheehan or Qualls, they both have thier own seperate agendas. I am simply for America. Ignore them and maybe they both will realize they are an embarrassment to our heros, fallen or still in action.
August 30th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Someone wrote…”The important thing is support our soilders, our nation, our leader. I am neither pro-BUSH or anti-BUSH. ”
This is an example of the mindless ambivalnce of the pro war people. You say “support our leader” then you say you are not pro Bush. Ummm come again? You say “support our nation” but now you are in “not in our name” territory. This nation is not at war with Iraq, only its president is and the soliders he commands. He asked Congress to grant him authority to use force in Iraq only if absolutly necessary. Do you think it was absolutly necessary? Or was he lying and had obsessed to go to war no matter what? How do you think Congress would have voted had he told the truth about his intentions? Whatever, war was his final choice which when you read the Constitution about who can declare war it looks like he who swore to uphold the Constitution got Congress to let him side step it. Too bad the Supreme Court couldn’t rule on this. —ri
September 2nd, 2005 at 9:05 pm
I think my machine is hung up as I can’t possibly have the last word…. ri