nytimes.com — Dear son, Charles wrote on the last page of the journal, “I hope this book is somewhat helpful to you. Please forgive me for the poor handwriting and grammar. I tried to finish this book before I was deployed to Iraq. It has to be something special to you. I’ve been writing it in the states, Kuwait and Iraq.
Jan 1, 2007 View in Crawl 4
jimmessengerJan 1, 2007Submitter
Narrated by the soldier's wife.
fogdeluneJan 2, 2007
I have a non-fact checked talking point spewed out by the right wing for you, "anodized aluminum tubes". I love when someone of the political affiliation of the corrupt party that has been in power tries to play underdog.The soldier in this story understood sacrifice. This is something the Chickenhawks in power will never understand, because the main chickenhawk had the luxury of supporting the war in Vietnam only in words, and failed to fulfill his commitment to the National Guard. Too bad he wasn't talking about "Staying the course" back then. He wouldn't spill his whiskey, let alone his blood.The man in this story is a hero, and a lack of people like him, and having people like Colin Powell get kicked out of positions of leadership has made us lose our place as the greatest nation on earth. Having that status as a nation is earned, not given.
klayborgJan 3, 2007
That guy is one dedicated father. A truly moving story.
robman8023Jan 3, 2007
@paulcooper"I'm completely ignorant as to why I'm wrong"You could have stopped at "I'm completely ignorant." Maybe you should consider that you're point of view isn't the only one that matters for a change.
paulcooperJan 3, 2007
@robman,er, I'm Australian for starters - and no the International community was against the decision and didn't believe there were WMDs in Iraq, our Prime Minister went along because he thought it was right or perhaps because we had free trade negotiations going on at that time? I don't know. (we got the free trade agreement shortly after, i hope our soldier that died was happy about the increased profit)Most of the international community believed the UN weapons inspectors, who said there were no WMDs. The majority of the American (assuming majority because Bush won the lection after the war) people believed the various Bush staff that got up on stage and paraded 'evidence'. I'm not sure what kind of exposure your media gives you to whats going on in the world - or the opinions of other nations and other people who have conflicting views of the current regime. I doubt you really care, you do live in the best country in the world after all. You must be right.Basically what you can have to me in your reply shows a) you are either lying to try and make a point or b) you are seriously mis informed. Let me point out some failings in your logic, I'd be interested in your answers."everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, everyone. Let there be no mistake. The administration did not mislead anyone or lie, it was accepted as fact that Saddam had WMDs."Why are there only 3 major nations (if you consider Australia major) involved in the war against Iraq then? If it were so obvious and the threat so imminent, then why would Europe be so opposed to the war? The real fact is, it was only considered Gospel because the CIA _told_ you it was like that, with _fake_ evidence and flimsy intelligence. Its almost like they wanted to go to war...surely not!"I understand there can be other points of view, but your refusal to accept that my point of view might also be valid and is worthy of consideration is, in fact, narrow minded."On the contrary. I belong to no group, my mother (no father) is rather conservative, but mainly straight down the middle and i went to Christian school. My ideas are formed by observing facts, evidence and applying logic to the situation. You are the one who wanted to label me as being Liberal. No doubt such a thing as Liberal exists - there most definately is a group of people who all believe the same way on nearly all topics - I think thats just as bad as being conservative (perhaps less damaging and scary - but from a 'narrow-mindedness' point of view, just as bad.) Applying rational thought - not dogma - to a situation is the only time when you come up with a reasonable opinion.I also understand there are other points of view, however yours can only be believed by someone who _chooses_ to ignore basic facts and glaring issues that are staring you in the face for the sake of belonging to a 'clique' (i'm assuming repulican by your mention of it in the comment). The reason is _not_ because i believe my opinion is alwasy right or something equally absurd, but because your arguments work on circular logic and assumption. (e.g. Bush went to war with iraq because everyone thought he had WMDs because Bush told us he did, so Bush went to war and its right because Bush said its right. - come on, WTF?)Finally, your prediction for the future - whats signs are you basing that on? The incrased stability in the region since the US started messing with it? hm, well thats not happening..err perhaps you might clarify?feel free to reach me on paul DOT cooper AT aapt DOT com DOT au if you get sick of replying to digg comments. however, if you decide to reply - don't take my statements out of context, it is quite legitimate to make a statement after proving a point - to simply quote the statement on its own and then pretend there was no reasoning behind it is childish.
partrivJan 3, 2007
This is the truth and substance that real life and emotions are made of. Not some f**king politics or some f**king war, but personal beliefs and love. This transcends any material desire or drive for superficial success. This is just truth. Truth. This hurt me to read, and all my love goes out to the boy and his fallen father.
marghJan 14, 2007
@JorgeGonzalezLeave the nihilism for the fourteen year olds and the mass murderers.