Welcome GregH. I would like to politely point out that the US invaded Afghanistan due to the fact that the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden, the one who orchestrated the attacks against the US on 9/11. The men who carried out the attacks were mostly from Saudi Arabia, yes, but their links to Al Qaeda and Osama in Afghanistan are well documented. Patrick Damon was career military. He was opposed to the war, but knew his commitment to his brothers in arms was paramount.

She said he opposed the war, but when he was called to serve in Afghanistan in his 20th and probably final year in the Guard, he went willingly.

“He didn’t agree with the war, but he also believed that he had made a commitment to our country and regardless of how you feel about the president or the policy, you don’t turn your back on your commitment,” she said.

Damon did not have a known heart problem. He was a competitive runner and appeared to be in top physical condition, family and friends said.

If he was called off to a month of training and collapsed after training on an obstacle course, would there be any difference? He still died of a heart attack, not from combat. I feel sadness for her loss (as well as for her children), but I feel her anger at the President is misplaced. Would she still be angry at him if her husband died of a heart attack on an Army base here in the US? The difference here is location…not cause.

(On a side note: Iraq was invaded for many reasons, not the least of which was their repeated nose-thumbing to multiple UN resolutions. If I remember correctly, there were something like 7 cited reasons to invade Iraq, and this was after our government exhausted diplomatic efforts at the UN and a final resolution. Although this has nothing to do with Patrick Damon’s heart attack, I thought it should be pointed out.)

DakRoland on September 25, 2006 at 3:22 PM

But their links to Germany and Saudia Arabia were also well documented. Why didn’t we apply the same rule of force there?

Because Germany and Saudi Arabia reacted much differently to what happened than Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban. Plus, the head of Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan (at the time), and we gave them a chance to turn him over. They refused, thumbing their noses at us. So we invaded, threw the Taliban into disarray, and began our hunt of Osama. I’m still pissed that 5 years later, we still don’t have that SOB in custody, and now the Taliban seems to be on the upswing. I don’t think invading Saudi Arabia or Germany (again) would have helped bring down Al Qaeda at the time.

the fact remains that he didn’t die on some obstacle couse at some Army base in the US. He died in Afghanistan, where it appears, this widow didn’t believe he should have been. This lady lost her husband, and the father of her children. I think she is entitled to be angry at whomever she wishes.

He believed he was supposed to answer the call to serve, no matter what the mission. I think her anger is more over the fact that he was not home, with his family when he passed away. I think her anger is more about the fact that she was not able to say goodbye. I believe her distaste for the war is getting mixed with her emotions at this time, and it’s being misdirected. Yes, she can blame whomever she wishes, but does that make her right? There’s no question that anyone who loses a loved one, for any reason, feels loss and grief and anger and sadness. I just question whether blaming President Bush is really going to help her or her kids heal and move on.

DakRoland on September 25, 2006 at 4:44 PM