*cough* ADAM Walsh *cough*

As in "son," not "daughter."

Thanks, I guess I got him confused with the Klass guy.

Sure thing.

Larger, relevant point-- good post.

I agree, and I tried to point this out to some folks yesterday at Cole's place. Of course the Sheehan-philes were outraged that I would make such a statement.

I even stated that I thought she was a fantastic woman for raising a child who loved his country so much and who actually did know the meaning of sacrifice.

Cindy owned Casey.

He was her slave.

Chimpy stole her from him.

Liberals support this idea of slavery.

Chimpy stole him from her.

Damn, PNAC must have sabotaged my keyboard.

You know, what's interesting is that this story will be disappearing in a week or two when Bush goes back to Washington.

I wonder where the anti-semitic, semi-insane moonbats will go then? She's always going on about what she wants from Bush, I want her to look into the eyes of the loved ones who also lost people in Iraq and tell them their son/daughter/husband/wife died for nothing.

I'm not sure whats worse, a woman could be that crazy and get away with it, or the fact that the left and the MSM are behind her all the way.

It's kind of like watching kids egg on the retarded kid to eat dog shit in the belief that it will make him popular and right.

Anyways, something has to keep news about Air America stealing from kids off the front page.

yeah, larger point, I'm with you too,

for some weird reason I was reminded of Lincoln's letter to a woman who lost 2 sons on the same day (it was thought she lost 5),

the line about the pride she must feel for "having lain so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom".

language. anyway, I read later that the mother was a Southern sympathizer, and threw away Lincoln's letter.

However, it would be correct to say that Cindy sacrificed her job and is sacrificing her marriage to her cause.

"Sacrifice" is the most overused and misused word I have ever seen. Everybody that makes any kind of "value decision", i.e. placing a value on a deed or item greater than the alternative, they are making a "sacrifice". As an example you give above, the "sacrifice bunt" is a value decision. The runner at the advanced base has more value than the batter's out. In the same vein the parents who "sacrifice" their desire for a new auto in order to send their child to college have decided that the education of their child has more value than the new auto.

A "sacrifice" in essence is "giving up that which has value in exchange for that which has NO value".

but that's what sacrifice means, dude. It doesn't mean you're just wantonly destroying something for no good reason. It means you're giving it up to achieve something better.

And yes, people who eschew big apartments and expensive trips are "sacrificing" for their retirement, or their kids' college funds.

The original meaning-- killing an animal to appease the gods -- was an exchange of present value for (expected) future value too.

To Dave in Texas:

That same language is engaved at the monument to MIAs at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu.

The full quote is:

The solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

When I saw the engraving I thought about the howling that would come from the left if those words were written today about the current war on terror.

Ok, so if that's what "sacrifice" means, then why in the hell are so many Playboy Playmates "sacrificing" their pubes now-a-days?

Cuz I'm an old-schooler, and I miss the muff.

Brad, sometimes I get a little bleary-eyed reading Lincoln's words.

I usually cheer up by remembering that I have relatives who STILL refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression".

"The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our Armed Forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honor the sacrifice of their families. And we mourn every American who has died so bravely, so far from home."

Pres Bush, 9/7/03

I guess he hasn't looked up the meaning of the word.

Am I to take it that none of the parents who continue to support the war despite the loss of their son have sacrificed anything?

Yeah, maybe "sacrifice" is the wrong word. We've been using it for a long time, though. Because we have a long tradition of honoring those who have given their lives for their country, and their widows, orphans, and greiving parents. You don't throw that proud tradition away, or make "convenient exceptions," because one mother went moonbatty. That's something the left does.

Ace, this was the EXACT same thing that I was thinking about last night when I heard someone refer to her sacrifice. Notice how the left talks about the sacrifice of Mrs. Sheehan. But they conveniently forget that other person, what was his name? Casey or something? You know, the kid that actually gave up his life, willingly, to protect his country. He made a sacrifice. His mother suffered a loss, but she didn't sacrifice anything.

Hey, that's not me!

I don't care that Lincoln or Bush used the word. If you think of it, it is a poor word choice and conveys a meaning it should not have. When you use it in the context of John Walsh 's son, it's disturbing and akward. And that is why Andy Sipowicz always said, "Sorry for your lost, ma'am."

I am witnessing a miracle here: first leftard antiwar moonbats aer crying over destroyed crosses (in one of those antiwar displays near the Cindy-fest) and now another one is using the way Bush talks to support their argument.

WAIT JUST ONE SECOND, HERE...Did Defense Guy say someone at John Cole's blog was outraged?

I'm sure there must be some misunderstanding.

"I am witnessing a miracle here: first leftard antiwar moonbats aer crying over destroyed crosses (in one of those antiwar displays near the Cindy-fest) and now another one is using the way Bush talks to support their argument."

Are you talking to me? I don't see anybody else here. You must be talking to me...

I'm no leftard, lady. At least not the "left" part, anyway.

I was gonna take notes, Ace, but I just sacrificed my pen somewhere. Well, I guess it'll turn up.

So I made a heroic $5,000 "sacrifice" the last time I went to Vegas?

Damn, I had no idea being such a profligate wastrel could be so heroic - the casinos should hand out medals!

Sat on the shitter,
"Sacrificed" last night's meatloaf.
Ahhhhhh... Pants nice and loose.

...or Cindy might just be pissed off some people made up some lies, getting her son killed as a result of those lies.

are y'all too busy being glib and smart or too stupid to recognize the truth.

not that the truth matters much to moral cowards like your red, white & pussy selves.

The "truth" is that you're a terrorist sympathizer John.

I gather there are two people named John posting here. The email-less John wrote:

...or Cindy might just be pissed off some people made up some lies, getting her son killed as a result of those lies.

But you leftists seem to have missed the fact that the people telling these deadly lies are middle eastern religious leaders, politicians, and media (especially al-Jazeera). Instead, you blame America. As always.

emailed John - you don't see anybody else here? Oh, okay then -- I'm not here.

Balls.

There is a certain type of woman who wants a child because mommies get all that attention. Other women stop them in the Ding-Dong aisle at Super*Happy*Mart and coo. "Oooh, isn't he darling! Such a big strong boy!" And Mommie basks in the glow. I've been married to one such for over thirty years, although she's not nearly as crazy about it.

Look at the way Ms. Sheehan refers to Casey Sheehan. Infantilism. She was still depending on the reflected glow of admiration -- you produced a real good boy there; good work! What happened was, Casey got fed up with nappies and getting his cheek pinched, and joined the Army where he could feel like an adult doing an adult's work, and Cindy felt abandoned, betrayed. As long as Casey was alive she had to stifle it, because he would come home and rip her a new one and she knew it.

Now he's gone, and she can get her revenge on him by infantilizing his memory and trashing the causes he believed in and the work he was doing.

Regards,
Ric

One good thing I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere, though they just talked about it on Fox - apparently some pro-war, gold star parents have been going over to the Sheehan display and taking away the crosses marked with their children's names.

Related article today in the WSJ, via RCP:

Cindy Sheehan Does Not Speak for Me.

"Cindy felt abandoned, betrayed. As long as Casey was alive she had to stifle it, because he would come home and rip her a new one and she knew it.
Now he's gone, and she can get her revenge on him by infantilizing his memory and trashing the causes he believed in and the work he was doing."

Sounds plausible. Nice analysis, Ric.

Ann Coulter gets things off to a snappy start: today's column is called Commander in Grief.

"To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show."

Drudge has some pretty good stuff this morning.

I believe your trouble with the word 'sacrifice' stems from your failure to fully imagine the loss of one's child. Not uncommonly, parents faced with such trauma minutely scrutinize every single decision they made, or failed to make (same thing in retrospect), that may have contributed to or averted the fatal outcome. Their minds frantically consider every possible measure, every possible action, they might have taken, if only they had known, if only they had trusted their gut, if only they could go back in time. Very often, they pose hard questions to themselves--"Why didn't I do something when I had the chance? Why didn't I shoot him in the foot, crack him in the knee with a baseball bat while he was sleeping, so they couldn't deploy him? Yes, he would be hurt, he would hate me, think his mother was crazy--but he would still be alive..." He would still be alive: the only possible wish a parent in such horrible circumstances could ever dream of having. The answers, again in retrospect (the only perspective you would be likely to have for a long while), might seem like mealymouthed and apologetic excuses--so much so, that after awhile you feel you did, in fact, sacrifice your child. If only you had instead sacrificed your composure, your complacency, your wishful thinking, your fear of being seen as a madwoman, or a traitor, or a bad mother, or anything else, your child would still be here in this world, right now. In short, when it comes to the welfare of their children, healthy parents never see themselves as passive bystanders--even more so in the merciless regret and guilt that envelopes their existence after the death of a child. They are built to protect, and when that protection fails catastrophically, it is almost impossible to convince their hearts that there was nothing they could have done.