Rewarding Incompetence — An Open Letter to Time Magazine.

Virtual_Burlesque

Former Ecdysiast
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Posts
4,083
Rewarding Incompetence
Cindy Sheehan

December 21, 2004


Dear Time Editors:

My son, Spc. Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq on 04/04/04. This has been an extraordinary couple of weeks of "slaps in the faces" to us families of fallen heroes.

First, the Secretary of Defense—Donald Rumsfeld—admits to the world something that we as military families already know: The United States was not prepared for nor had any plan for the assault on Iraq. Our children were sent to fight an ill-conceived and badly prosecuted war. Our troops were sent with the wrong type of training, bad equipment, inferior protection and thin supply lines. Our children have been killed and we have made the ultimate sacrifice for this fiasco of a war, then we find out this week that Rumsfeld doesn't even have the courtesy or compassion to sign the "death letters"—as they are so callously called. Besides the upcoming holidays and the fact we miss our children desperately, what else can go wrong this holiday season?

Well let's see. Oh yes. George W. Bush awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to three more architects of the quagmire that is Iraq. Thousands of people are dead and Bremer, Tenet and Franks are given our country's highest civilian award. What's next?

To top everything off—after it has been proven that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, there were no ties between Saddam and 9/11 and over 1,300 brave young people in this country are dead and Iraq lies in ruins— what does Time Magazine do? Names George W. Bush as its "Man of the Year." The person who betrayed this country into a needless war and whom I hold ultimately responsible for my son's death and who was questionably elected, again, to a second term, is honored this way by your magazine.

I hope we finally find peace in our world and that our troops who remain in Iraq are brought home speedily—after all, there was no reason for our troops to be there in the first place. No reason for my son and over 1,300 others to have been taken from their families. No reason for the infrastructure of Iraq to be demolished and thousands of Iraqis being killed. No reason for the notion of a "happy" holiday to be robbed from my family forever. I hope that our "leaders" don't invade any other countries which pose no serious threat to the United States. I hope there is no draft. I hope that the five people mentioned here (and many others) will finally be held responsible for the horrible mistake they got our country into. I hope that competence is finally rewarded and incompetence is appropriately punished. These are my wishes for 2005.

This isn't the first time your magazine has selected a questionable man for this honor—but it's the first time it affected my family so personally and so sorrowfully.

Cindy Sheehan



Cindy Sheehan lives in California.
 
My heart and thoughts go out to Ms. Sheehan and everyone, on all sides, who have lost loved ones to this stupid, stupid, stupid war.
 
I was given to understand, however, that Time's "Person of the Year" was awarded to the person most in the news or most affecting the world at large - not necessarily a person of good judgement, moral rectitude, or political acumen.

Shanglan
 
BlackShanglan said:
I was given to understand, however, that Time's "Person of the Year" was awarded to the person most in the news or most affecting the world at large - not necessarily a person of good judgement, moral rectitude, or political acumen.

Shanglan

True. Didn't Hitler get it once?
 
Evil Alpaca said:
True. Didn't Hitler get it once?

HAHAHAHA!

I love the alpaca ;)

In a story recently, I saw a stuffed hobby horse with a stuffed camel riding it. If I squinted just right, it got me all excited.

Shanglan
 
Evil Alpaca said:
True. Didn't Hitler get it once?
Adolf Hitler was Time’s Man of the Year in 1938.

They were seriously considering giving the award to Osama Bin Laden in 2002, but eventually they chickened out.

Mrs. Sheehan’s objection is not a reaction that would find approval by our resident logician, but rather is an understandable human response.

If we ever have a worldwide pandemic, like in 1918, no doubt Time will give there ‘Man’ of the Year Award to a disease.
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
Adolf Hitler was Time’s Man of the Year in 1938.


Damnit, and I thought it was just a clever joke. But at least I am vindicated.

Shanglan
 
The rag that is Time Magazine gives the person of a year to whoever effect change in the world. Yes Hitler won it and so did the personal computer.....Though I have great faith in the President unlike some of you I am preplexed to why Tenet walked away wish medal for dropping the ball. You don't give the watch man a bonus after he misses the robbers. I am not getting into another debate on the many aspects of the war but I wouldn't care about what is written in Time. Many people I am told think former President Clinton agreat man.......I can't see it but hey everyone has their reason. Last year Time honored all the soldiers......I thought it was a good tribute to a group the bash often enough.
 
Jagged said:
The rag that is Time Magazine gives the person of a year to whoever effect change in the world. Yes Hitler won it and so did the personal computer...
One of those two are evil. Guess which.

How can a gadget become the Person Of The Year? Wasn't there any actual inerresting people people that year?
 
The cherry on the sundae of godawful news last week was a small but ugly story about Rumsfeld and the bereavement letters sent to families of men and women killed in action. Apparently he has hand-signed only a fraction of them. Most of the letters have his signature faked by a machine, which is common in the junk mail industry but damned insulting from someone who is supposedly honoring your sacrifice.

War is an industry now. Not something to take personally.
 
Ms. Sheehan's response could be used as one of the reasons the man was chosen. While my prayers are with her and her family and the families of all others killed, wounded, maimed and then treated like a number by the government of the country they fought to protect, G.W. is the right person for the dubious title.

Rumsfield is an arrogant asshole but to place blame on him or others is taking blame from the person who actually deserves it. I am surprised he personally signed even one letter. Any member of the G.W. team should not be singled out and blamed, he is responsible for their actions.

Every elected official who ever voted against an increase in military spending to pay for armor is now screaming we should have had more armor and every tax-payer who ever screamed don't raise my taxes for the fuckin military is sayin the same thing. Each person now saying we should have had more armor never said we need more armor before, but by saying so now they are each suddenly considered a "military expert."

The recipient of this title, it was no award or honor, deserves it completely. He has changed world events and changed the world's perception of the country others used to look towards with hope and now look towards with fear and anger.

The few things I have heard in the Time article were both more flattering and less flattering than I would have expected. He alone deserves the title and he alone is responsible for each and every action taken by those he selected to do his bidding.
 
Time Magazine’s reason (alibi) for choosing George W. Bush as “Person of the Year” is as follows:

“For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year.”

They are not mentioning the outcome, or they would be forced to say something about the half-pint brain in that ten-gallon hat. While I have so far been unable to acquire Time Magazine’s explanation for choosing Adolf Hitler as “Man of the Year” in 1938, no doubt, at that point in time, something similar could be published by an American magazine about Hitler, as was stated by Time about their choice of George W. Bush.

This is not an award to honor a valuable member of society, but rather as a MVP for the selling of magazines, and splashing about of printers’ ink.

That was why I posted Mrs. Sheehan's letter under Tom Paine‘s title. This title is often perceived of by the public as an honor, and as a perceived honor. Mrs. Sheenan rightfully objects to that perception existing about the person who’s incompetence she holds to be directly responsible for the death of her son. Therefor, her letter of opposition.

I am certain she had little hope that Time Magazine would change their award. At least, the people learning of the title should be made aware that this is nothing of which to be proud.
 
Lisa Denton said:
Every elected official who ever voted against an increase in military spending to pay for armor is now screaming we should have had more armor and every tax-payer who ever screamed don't raise my taxes for the fuckin military is sayin the same thing.

I don't think anyone voted against an increase to pay for armor. There were votes against Bush's Iraq budget that had nothing to do with the amount of money, and everything to do with the lack of accountability for how the money would be spent. Kerry was criticized over and over for "voting against military spending for body armor" which was a blatant lie. Democrats were the ones who insisted that body armor be added to the budget.

As predicted, Halliburton is continuing to do business as usual despite the army's repeated threats (repeatedly withdrawn) to put a hold on payments to the company while it's being investigated for fraudulent billing practices in Iraq. (How many years does it take to investigate something like that, I wonder, and do we get a refund of the money they stole? Won't their stockholders suffer if that happens?)

That's what Kerry was trying to prevent, mouseketeers. Corporate friends of Bush/Cheney profiting at the expense of the men and women in uniform.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top