Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: To Bush $ are more important than the lives

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    Death Be Not Loud
    By MAUREEN DOWD

    Published: November 6, 2003

    WASHINGTON

    Who can blame poor President Bush? Look at his terrible dilemma.

    There are those who say the chief executive should have come out of his Texas ranch house and articulated and assuaged the sorrow and outrage and anxiety the nation was feeling on Sunday after the deadliest day in Iraq in seven months. An attack on a Chinook helicopter had killed 15 American soldiers, 13 men and 2 women, and wounded 21.

    There are those who say Mr. Bush should have emulated Rudy Giuliani's empathetic leadership after 9/11, or Dad's in the first gulf war, and attended some of the funerals of the 379 Americans killed in Iraq. Or one. Maybe the one for Specialist Darryl Dent, the 21-year-old National Guard officer from Washington who died outside Baghdad in late August when a bomb struck his truck while he was delivering mail to troops. His funeral was held at a Baptist church three miles from the White House.

    But let's look at it from the president's point of view: if he grieves more publicly or concretely, if he addresses every instance of bad news, like the hideous specter of Iraqis' celebrating the downing of the Chinook, he will simply remind people of what's going on in Iraq.

    So it's understandable why, going into his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush wouldn't want to underscore that young Americans keep getting whacked over there, and we don't know who is doing it or how to stop it.

    The White House is cleverly trying to distance Mr. Bush from the messy problem of flesh-and-blood soldiers with real names dying nearly every day, while linking him to the heroic task of fighting global terror.

    It's better to keep it vague, to talk about the "important cause" and the "brave defenders" of liberty.

    If he gets more explicit, or allows the flag-draped coffins of fallen heroes to be photographed coming home, it will just remind people that the administration said this would be easy, and it's teeth-grindingly hard. And that the administration vowed to get Osama and Saddam and W.M.D., and hasn't. And that the Bush team that hyped the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq has now created an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. And that there was no decent plan for the occupation or for financing one, no plan for rotating or supporting troops stretched too thin to guard ammunition caches or police a fractious society, and no plan for getting out.

    As the White House points out, Mr. Bush cannot fairly pick and choose which memorial services to go to, or which deaths to speak of.

    "If a helicopter were hit an hour later, after he came out and spoke, should he come out again?" Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, told The Times's Elisabeth Bumiller, explaining Mr. Bush's silence after the Chinook crash. The public, he added, "wants the commander in chief to have proper perspective, and keep his eye on the big picture and the ball."

    The ball for fall is fund-raising. President Bush has been going full throttle since summer, spending several days a week flying around the country, hitting up rich Republicans for $2,000 checks. He has raised $90 million so far out of the $175 million he plans to spend on a primary campaign in which he has no opponent.

    At fund-raisers, Mr. Bush prefers to talk about the uptick in the economy, not the downtick in Iraq. On Monday, arriving for a fund-raiser in Birmingham, he was upbeat, not somber. As Mike Allen of The Washington Post reported in his pool report, "The president, who gave his usual salute as he stepped off Marine One, appeared to start the day in a fabulous mood. . . . An Alabama reporter who was under the wing shouted, `How long will U.S. troops be in Iraq?' The president gave him an unappreciative look."

    Raising $1.8 million at lunch, he stuck to the line that "we are aggressively striking the terrorists in Iraq, defeating them there so we will not have to face them in our own country." He didn't want to depress the donors by mentioning the big news story, the loss of 15 American soldiers, or sour the mood by conceding the obvious, that the swelling horde of terrorists fighting us there will not prevent terrorists from coming after us here. Maybe we should all be like President Bush and not read the papers so we don't get worn down either.

    Perhaps the solution to Mr. Bush's quandary is to coordinate his schedule so he can go to cities where he can attend both fund-raisers and funerals.

    The law of averages suggests it shouldn't be hard.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    hey stereotypical anti-Bush rhetoric aside, even his most ardent supporters have to admit the president is treating the troops like [b]garbage[/b].

    Vets are pissed, and rightly so. How about the 422 wounded soldiers at Fort Knox and the 633 at Fort Stewart that were in substandard conditions, languishing in indefinate "medical hold" - cmon man thats absolutely disgusting.

    [url=http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/]http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/[/url]

    Bush II couldn't go to a SINGLE funeral? not even 1? The parents of fallen soldiers get no word from the white house.

    People say "you have to support the troops" but how many people really understand what that means?

    I understand that war has consequences [b]but Bush is deliberately ignoring anything that could be construed as UGLY,[/b] rather go city hopping and talk about GDP and the effect of tax cuts.

    anyone else notice that the US Department of Defense changed the term "body bags" to "transfer tubes"

    [url=http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1067728207768&call_pageid=1038394944805&col=1038394]Transfer Tubes[/url]

    Clinton greeted returning coffins, as did Bush I and also Reagan. Bush II would rather avoid the entire ugliness and play politics.

    Its the rules man, the Commander in Chief has a responsibility, not to just order the troops to their death, but to comfort the families upon their return. Bush doing what he has done throughout his political career. Step on the poor and the weak to get to his goals and sweep their carcasses under the rug without a shred of regret. Its not by accident that more prisoners were executed under George W Bush then any other governor in the history of the union. The man simply doesn't give a f--k.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us