scoutsout80
11-06-2009, 12:50 PM
Maureen Dowd, columnist for the NY Times, said Obama was not looking for a photo-op when shown at Dover recently in middle of night saluting a casket of a returning dead hero.
It was a shock*ingly inac*cu*rate state*ment that dis*cred*ited an accom*plished colum*nist. No mat*ter where you stand on The New York Times edi*to*ri*al*ist Maureen Dowd’s polit*i*cal bent, it’s hard to deny her reach and talent.
But in the reac*tionary defense of her anointed one — President Obama — on last weekend’s Times op-ed page, she strayed far from real*ity and embraced a mythol*ogy made soft by the facts.
Yes, the president’s Oct. 29 trip to Dover Air Force base in the dark of night to greet a C-17 car*ry*ing fallen Americans killed in Afghanistan was a vivid exam*ple of the real*ity of that war and should pause to those who call for increased com*mit*ment there. And it was hon*or*able of Obama to see for him*self the human cost of his deci*sions — as every com*man*der and chief should.
But to reflex*ively defend the photo op engi*neered to cre*ate news about the president’s “sober*ing reminder” by claim*ing that the man who got us into Afghanistan in the first place never faced them is just plain bunk.
I had the honor to speak with nearly a dozen fam*i*lies of Marines killed in Iraq and Afghanistan a few years ago as part of a project with the Military Times news*pa*pers. We wrote a wide-ranging inves*tiga*tive piece on the con*duct of the ser*vices dur*ing the killed-in-action noti*fi*ca*tion process and the sup*port they pro*vided along the way.
It was an intim*i*dat*ing assign*ment, but one I cher*ish to this day. For, unlike Dowd, who I doubt has ever spo*ken with the fam*ily of a fallen ser*vice*mem*ber, I was forced to con*front the world I obliquely reported from afar — to hear the qua*ver*ing voices of moth*ers whose sons had been oblit*er*ated by road*side bombs.
And you know who else did that very same thing dozens of times in his eight years as pres*i*dent? The same man Dowd falsely accuses of declin*ing to con*front the real*ity of his war dead.
In my con*ver*sa*tions with those who sac*ri*ficed a son, a hus*band, a brother, or a boyfriend, all were uni*ver*sally grate*ful for George W. Bush’s sin*cere — and pri*vate — con*ver*sa*tions with them either before or directly after an event or speech at a mil*i*tary base. As a rou*tine, Bush would meet behind closed doors with fam*ily mem*bers who’d lost loved ones as part of his stop at mil*i*tary installations.
These were not sim*ply pro-war, anti-war, pro-Bush or anti-Bush fam*i*lies — they were all of the above. Some were against the Iraq war; oth*ers were stead*fast, despite their unimag*in*able sac*ri*fice, for vic*tory there. But to a man and women, these griev*ing Americans appre*ci*ated the president’s heart*felt com*pas*sion and deep under*stand*ing of their sac*ri*fice — and of the weight of the deci*sion to send poten*tially more of America’s young to their deaths.
It was a shock*ingly inac*cu*rate state*ment that dis*cred*ited an accom*plished colum*nist. No mat*ter where you stand on The New York Times edi*to*ri*al*ist Maureen Dowd’s polit*i*cal bent, it’s hard to deny her reach and talent.
But in the reac*tionary defense of her anointed one — President Obama — on last weekend’s Times op-ed page, she strayed far from real*ity and embraced a mythol*ogy made soft by the facts.
Yes, the president’s Oct. 29 trip to Dover Air Force base in the dark of night to greet a C-17 car*ry*ing fallen Americans killed in Afghanistan was a vivid exam*ple of the real*ity of that war and should pause to those who call for increased com*mit*ment there. And it was hon*or*able of Obama to see for him*self the human cost of his deci*sions — as every com*man*der and chief should.
But to reflex*ively defend the photo op engi*neered to cre*ate news about the president’s “sober*ing reminder” by claim*ing that the man who got us into Afghanistan in the first place never faced them is just plain bunk.
I had the honor to speak with nearly a dozen fam*i*lies of Marines killed in Iraq and Afghanistan a few years ago as part of a project with the Military Times news*pa*pers. We wrote a wide-ranging inves*tiga*tive piece on the con*duct of the ser*vices dur*ing the killed-in-action noti*fi*ca*tion process and the sup*port they pro*vided along the way.
It was an intim*i*dat*ing assign*ment, but one I cher*ish to this day. For, unlike Dowd, who I doubt has ever spo*ken with the fam*ily of a fallen ser*vice*mem*ber, I was forced to con*front the world I obliquely reported from afar — to hear the qua*ver*ing voices of moth*ers whose sons had been oblit*er*ated by road*side bombs.
And you know who else did that very same thing dozens of times in his eight years as pres*i*dent? The same man Dowd falsely accuses of declin*ing to con*front the real*ity of his war dead.
In my con*ver*sa*tions with those who sac*ri*ficed a son, a hus*band, a brother, or a boyfriend, all were uni*ver*sally grate*ful for George W. Bush’s sin*cere — and pri*vate — con*ver*sa*tions with them either before or directly after an event or speech at a mil*i*tary base. As a rou*tine, Bush would meet behind closed doors with fam*ily mem*bers who’d lost loved ones as part of his stop at mil*i*tary installations.
These were not sim*ply pro-war, anti-war, pro-Bush or anti-Bush fam*i*lies — they were all of the above. Some were against the Iraq war; oth*ers were stead*fast, despite their unimag*in*able sac*ri*fice, for vic*tory there. But to a man and women, these griev*ing Americans appre*ci*ated the president’s heart*felt com*pas*sion and deep under*stand*ing of their sac*ri*fice — and of the weight of the deci*sion to send poten*tially more of America’s young to their deaths.