Va. Gunman's Family Feels Hopeless, Lost; Apologizes to VT community

[BurtWorm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070420/virginia-tech-shooting


ALLEN G. BREED and AARON BEARD | AP | April 20, 2007 05:00 PM EST


BLACKSBURG, Va. — The family of Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho told The Associated Press on Friday that they feel "hopeless, helpless and lost," and "never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence."

"He has made the world weep. We are living a nightmare," said a statement issued by Cho's sister, Sun-Kyung Cho, on the family's behalf. It was the Chos' first public comment since the 23-year-old student killed 32 people and committed suicide Monday.

The family reached out to Raleigh, N.C., lawyer Wade Smith, who provided the statement to the AP. Smith said the family would not answer any questions.

"Our family is so very sorry for my brother's unspeakable actions. It is a terrible tragedy for all of us," said Sun-Kyung Cho, who works as a contractor for a State Department office that oversees American aid for Iraq.

"We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced," she said. "Each of these people had so much love, talent and gifts to offer, and their lives were cut short by a horrible and senseless act."


...

[ThomCat]

1. I hope the family isn't targetted by anyone.

I feel very sorry for them, and I worry that people will take out their anger and grief on this family. :(

[Warpy]

4. I feel the same way

because they lost a son, too, and in a worse way than just as a victim of a random shooting.

I'm afraid Koreans tend to feel shame very deeply. I hope they have friends and family to talk to about this.

It's horrible to see a family member spinning out of control and not being able to do anything because the law is being interpreted in too stringent a manner.

My deepest sympathy to them.

[kestrel91316]

2. It would be nice to see the families of the victims reach out to

Cho's family like the Amish folks did when they had their school shooting.............but there isn't enough sense of community between the victims' families for this to happen, I suspect......

[Bluerthanblue]

9. indeed it would, I hope so too. This would

be a step towards healing for all of them.

[AZBlue]

12. Oh, that would be just wonderful!

Perhaps in time...

[rhiannon55]

3. I can't imagine what anguish ALL the affected families are going through,

but for THIS family, the horror and the guilt must be excruciating.

So sad, all of it.:cry:

[EFerrari]

5. Cho is dead. His parents will live with this forever.

[monmouth]

6. The Amish were extremely kind to the shooter of their children..n/t

[MADem]

7. Republican family. You don't get State Department jobs without the old "loyalty" test

Not terribly germane, but worth noting. NT

[frogcycle]

8. actually

not worth noting

[MADem]

22. Fine, ignore it then. No one's forcing you to "note" anything. Or even get sanctimonious. NT

[AZBlue]

15. You mean that every employee of the State Department is a Republican?

Hardly.

Not only would that be absurd to assume, I know for a fact it's not true. A friend of mine, who's whole family are Democrats (and immigrants too - the horror!) just got a job there last year.

And...let's say the family is actually Republican. Who cares??

[MADem]

21. If you are in an IRAQ WAR job, there IS a loyalty test applied.

Don't believe what I am telling you, I really don't give a shit.

But I'm right. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html


Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq
Early U.S. Missteps in the Green Zone

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 17, 2006; A01



Adapted from "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, copyright Knopf 2006

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort...........

[flying_monkeys]

26. Are they still doing this? That is dated 9/2006

I don't know. Maybe it is still the policy, maybe not. But it wouldn't surprise me if a religious family from Centreville VA leaned Republican. Nor would it surprise me if only repugs were the ones who applied for Iraqi War jobs.


(Didn't an article say she was hired but through something like a contractor? I'll go dig, but I could swear two days ago the PTB tossed up a "distance" barrier between themselves and her.... I'll be back with the link/quote if I can find it)

[MADem]

35. Gonzales was questioned in the Senate about firing REPUBLICANS who weren't

sufficiently "Bushie" enough to suit them. They're still doing it. Loyalty is prized over ability.

It's happening in all departments, at all levels.

I've never seen it applied as slavishly as this administration does it, but it happens to some extent in all administrations. Other administrations don't put competence way down on the list though, and that is what BushCo has done.

The key point about BushCo is that they prize loyalty OVER competence--that is what the EMERALD CITY book exposed--and that book dealt specifically with Iraq War assets, from government regulars to contractors.

But it wasn't just in CPA jobs, it was everywhere, at all levels. Here's an example: Brownie. Here's another: Alberto. Here's a third: Harriet Miers.

Get a load of this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964.html

...Part of a generation of young religious conservatives who swept into the federal government after the election of President Bush in 2000, Goodling displayed unblinking devotion to the administration and expected others to do the same. When she started at Justice, "no job was too small for her," and as she moved rapidly up the ranks, none "was too large," Corallo said....To her detractors, Goodling was an enforcer of political loyalty who was not squeamish about firings -- of interns or of senior officials.

"She forced many very talented, career people out of main Justice so she could replace them with junior people that were either loyal to the administration or would score her some points," said a former career Justice official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal....

[AZBlue]

31. She went to Baghdad?

Link please. Thank you.

[MADem]

36. Who the fuck said she went to Baghdad? It's in her CV, that she had a job

connected with the Iraq War. Not all of those jobs require physical presence in the Green Zone.

Oh, and here's the "link, please" -- http://www.trentonian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18230982&BRD=1697&PAG=461&dept_id=44551&rfi=6

Sun Kyung-Cho is employed by the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office, according to U.S. officials and a State Department staff directory that says she works from an annex near the department's headquarters in Washington.....The office was set up by President Bush to coordinate the reconstruction program in Iraq and offers jobs to "highly skilled and motivated United States citizens'' to work at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, according to State Department documents. The office also has several Washington-based positions.
"Our mission is to support the sovereign, democratic rights of the Iraqi people to govern themselves, defend their country, and rebuild their economy,'' the office says in its recruiting brochure. "This ongoing mission is one that is unprecedented in size and scope.''
Sun Cho's current job is her third stint with the State Department, according to Princeton University, where she graduated with an economics major in 2004.
She previously worked as a summer intern at the department's International Labor Office and held a three-month economics internship in the summer before her senior year at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, sponsored by Princeton's International Internship Program.
...

[AZBlue]

39. You did. Why else use an article about the loyalty of those going to Baghdad

as proof of your allegation that she MUST be a Republican since she would have HAD TO pass a Bush loyalty test?? The article you used talks only about those going to Baghdad. Maybe you should read something thoroughly before you use it as "evidence."
(Your post #21: "If you are in an IRAQ WAR job, there IS a loyalty test applied.")

So, you still haven't proven that statement about State Department employees who haven't gone to Baghdad having to support Bush - and the subsequent implication that their family is Republican. If you have proof of that statement, go ahead and show a link, I'd like to see it.

Thanks.

[MADem]

41. No I did not. You made one LOOOOONG fucking leap. I said she worked for State

IN an "Iraq War Job" and if you get a patronage job in BushCo, you are GOP. Then I got the "outrage" treatment for daring to state such a thing.

You actually 'can' work direct Iraq War issues, and at a glorious salary, without ever having to feel your own cold flopsweat beneath your kevlar. It's a massive 'business,' you see, this little war.

GWB started UP this subset of State where she worked--I provided a link for that, too. I'm sure he hired Democrats left and right for an outfit he dreamed up. Righto. And pigs fly. But hey, whatever. Put basic logic and evidence aside so you can engage in meaningless and wrongheaded fighting for all I care.

[AZBlue]

44. Self-delete

You're not worth the time. Your rage and illogical thinking is all you want to hang on to. How happy's that making you?


Oh, and you can reply or not - that's up to you. But the ignore button was made for people like you and I'm using it! Take care.

[MADem]

45. You call THAT "self delete?" OhhhhKaaaaay..... So long, now! NT

[flying_monkeys]

19. So were possibly some of the families of the victims who died.

They still get my sympathy.


(Sympathy isn't partisan, usually, for me )

[MADem]

23. No one is saying they don't merit it. Some are INFERRING a lot, though, from a simple statement of

fact. NT

[flying_monkeys]

25. What was the point of bringing it up then?

There were posts expressing "Oh the poor family" and then you posted "Republican Family". What did bringing up that "fact" *then* have to do with the thread? You thought it worthy of note - - what, specifically, made it worthy of note for you to post here in this particular thread (did you mention it on the other 506 threads about VT/Cho/Sympathy/etc?)


(Simple statements of FACT are usually not really quite so simple statements of FACT. They often have a purpose for their placement... )

[frogcycle]

27. careful there

you might be being sanctimonious

[MADem]

28. You have two choices. You can let it go, or you can harp on it.

It was simply an observation--a valid observation. You can take from it what you will; nothing at all; or the fact that the GOP are shitheads when it comes to providing funding for any kind of medical care, and especially mental health care. The old "Own Bootstraps" party in action.

You chose to harp on my statement. You're the one beating this shit to death.

Like I said, you have two choices. You chose the "outrage" door. That's on you.

[frogcycle]

34. delete - mis-post

[stray cat]

10. Best wishes to his family as well

They are also victims...

[Dr Fate]

11. Those poor people- I am very upset. n/t

n/t

[Madspirit]

13. Gee

Too damned bad they didn't have all this compassion for their mentally ill son BEFORE he did something like this.
Lee

[AZBlue]

14. They are the complete 180 of the Klebold and Harris families.

The Klebolds and the Harris's never tried to get help for their kids; they had their kids at home with them and yet ignored what was going on with them and have even stated that they had nothing whatsoever to do with their child's behavior and instead it was society's fault; they never spoke out, never released statements; and now they support the decision to suppress evidence in the Columbine tragedy, information that could be vital to help recognize other children in similar circumstances and perhaps prevent another tragedy (I'm guessing there's something in this material that implicates the Harris's and the Kelbolds and they are trying to hide it).

May God (in whatever form you or they view God) bless the Seung-Hui family!

[Rocknrule]

17. I don't think they tried to avoid responsibility

but they were totally out to lunch. In one instance, one of the fathers confiscated their pipe bomb-making materials and GAVE IT BACK LATER :wtf:

[AZBlue]

20. Wow.

I hadn't heard that one. WTF indeed?!?!

[MADem]

24. Well, I really don't "know" that this family tried to get help for their kid, either.

I find it amazing that this kid snapped 'so fast,' if all this was 'completely unexpected.' It seems to me, just from his writing, stalking, and fire setting, that this shit has been building for awhile. And he never spent any time at home? Not over Xmas or Spring break?

Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to "compare and contrast." We know nothing at this point.

[AZBlue]

29. They were the ones who got him to commit himself at the hospital previously.

They also contacted the university at least once because they were concerned for him and feared he might be suicidal (they got little help from the school).

[MADem]

38. Wasn't that a year prior? In 2005? And you're telling me they didn't see anything odd in the

interim between then and now? There's plenty of "ball dropping" going on here, by the medical establishment, by the school, by the courts, and by the family.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1

April 18, 2007 — A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go.

In December 2005 — more than a year before Monday's mass shootings — a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care. ....The evaluation came from a psychiatric hospital near Virginia Tech, where Cho was taken by police in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him, and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.

After Dr. Crouse's psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering followup treatment on an outpatient basis.

On the form, a box is checked, showing that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

Immediately below it was another box that is not checked: "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness."

Authorities said they had no contact with Cho between then and Monday's mass killings....

[AZBlue]

40. He was not a minor. They had no say or control over him legally.

And our laws don't require the necessary follow-up, as evidenced above. It's all just "suggested."

[MADem]

42. Ah, so...the minute a family member reaches 18, you ignore their behavior?

Even if they come home for college vacations and act batshit crazy? They had control over that kid--they had the control of the "tuition and room and board." They had the "control of the spending money." If this kid had worked, we'd know that by now.

This shit didn't happen overnight. There was a lot of 'ignoring' going on--the only one with any stones were those teachers--the one who alerted on the kid, and the other one who booted him out of class.

Everyone else, his family included, just looked the other way, it seemed. It was easier when their problem was living several hundred miles away, I guess.

[Captain Hilts]

16. They didn't do it. They don't have to apologize. Their empathy is most welcome. nt

[flying_monkeys]

18. Very nice apology, but it bugs me.

I am reading it and feeling a great "distancing" in there, a gaping separation from their son. Perhaps I am accenting certain words wrong in my interpretation, but "unspeakable actions" and "a horrible and senseless act" - - I dunno, they could have made a statement without condemnation of their son/brother.

What would have been wrong with just
"Our family is so very sorry for my brother's actions. It is a terrible tragedy for all of us,"

"We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced."

"Each of these people had so much love, talent and gifts to offer, and their lives were cut short."


I feel a lot of sympathy for this family (and have for a while) but this reads like they threw him under the wheels of the bus after his death and I wonder if their attitude toward him during his life was similar? I can't imagine my parents talking this way even if I had done something so horrific as to kill 32 innocent people.... I can't see them doing that kind of distancing (yes, I know, partially cultural perhaps).

eh, I'm overloaded on the Cho story - - time to go out for dinner!

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Could be the culture

I am not kiding here... and a sense of shame

[frogcycle]

32. cut her some slack

The sister wrote this on behalf of the family. She probably agonized over it. She wanted to make very clear that they were not making excuses for the guy, not in any way trying to diminish the deaths. They wanted to show as much sympathy and sorrow as they possibly could to the families, and not in any way appear to be whining about their own loss. I think she did a wonderful job in extremely trying circumstances. Regardless of what might have been done better by all of them previously - the letter is a good effort and should stand as that without critique. I for one am concerned about the parents; I hope someone is looking out for them.

[frogcycle]

33. delete - dup

[MADem]

43. It sounds like it was written by a State Department or WH speechwriter, is what you are saying

This bit, particularly:

We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence."


It sounds like the "Who Knew?" defense, and it rings a bit hollow to me, as well. That said, I do feel sorry for the family too. They may have had an 'idea' but they certainly didn't wish this on anyone:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/03/01/predicted/index.html

No one could have predicted it
When terrorists hijacked airplanes and crashed airplanes into buildings, Condoleezza Rice said that no one could have predicted it. When levees broke and floodwaters poured into New Orleans, George W. Bush said no one could have anticipated it.

The Bush administration was wrong both times, of course. Long before 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration was warning that terrorists might try to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. And long before Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana officials were warning that New Orleans wouldn't stand a chance if a massive hurricane ever hit.

The "who knew?" defense seems to be a favorite of this White House. So while we're not so big on preemptive strikes, maybe it makes sense to make one here. Before conditions get any worse in Iraq -- at least 30 more people were killed in sectarian fighting today -- let's get one thing straight: Someone could have predicted this, and somebody did.

[Catherine Vincent]

37. I can only imagine how the family feels.

I feel bad for them.