She wants to ask the President to tell her truthfully, why he rushed to war in Iraq, and why he chooses to remain there, indefinitely. Her problem with Bush is she feels that he is a liar. Many people are in agreement with her. Whether you feel she has the moral high ground or not, she certainly is in the right place at the right time to hit a nerve for Mr.Bush; And that is quite an achievement, for he is so isolated from any opinion that contradicts his own and that of his crew of 'yes' men and 'yes' women.
> > > > > > > > > Actually I was asking where she gets her moral > > > > > power from in the first place. > > > > > > > > Is it moral power or maternal instinct and > > > attachment? > > > > > > > > You've heard the stories of mothers picking up a > > > car to save their > > > > dear and beloved child. Is this that different? > > > She's running on > > > > her maternal image she's still carrying inside. > > > > > > "Moral power" was Peter's phrase. I was asking him > > > what he meant by it. He said she lost her moral > > > power by taking the "I'm right/he's wrong" stance. > > > > > > Seems to me morality is always a matter of right and > > > wrong, so I'm not sure how she could "lose" her > > > moral power by asserting that her stance is right and > > > Bush's is wrong. > > > > > > But I was waiting to hear from Peter; I'm sure he'll > > > be able to clarify. > > > > Let's see...what did I mean. I see moral power coming > > from purity of intent with no other agenda than that > > intent. Her son went to war because of the threat of > > WMD. He is killed. There are no WMD. Why did you make > > him go to war and die, Mr. President? You just wasted > > the life of my son; you allowed his death to occur for > > no reason.Why? Powerful position. > > How can you interpret "You just wasted the life of my son; > you allowed his death to occur for no reason" as anything > but "You're wrong, George"? > > But Cindy seems to > > have taken a position of opposition to make Bush > > "wrong" and therefore she will be "right". I see her > > as attempting to humiliate Bush. Nothing can come from > > this. Each side just tries to make the other side > > wrong. No true moral debate. > > Do you really think the words you suggest would > be somehow less humiliating? What kind of "moral > debate" can you have with someone whose son you > allowed to die for no reason? > > "Purity of intent," it seems to me, would mean > that she was asking for information, but it would > be disingenuous for her to pretend that's why she's > there, so there's no way it *could* be pure in the > way you'd like. She'd have to be a birdbrain, a > total naif, to think he has any answers to give her > beyond the trite cant she's heard dozens of times > already. > > You don't want her to take a different stance; you > want her to be somebody she's not, in an alternate > universe. I think you want Bush to be somebody > he's not as well (don't we all!). ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
