« Steroids and the State of the Union address | Main | Dog or blog? »

Thursday, January 22, 2004

Australians rock; MoDo is still slime

Professor Bainbridge quotes and links a compelling piece from Australia's The Age newspaper, written by their New York correspondent, Caroline Overington.  I'd come across the same article before, but what she wrote that jumped off the page at me was something rather different than what Prof. B quoted:

I remember sitting on a small plane, travelling from North Carolina to New York, when the war was a few weeks old. I was reading USA Today and, as I opened it to study a map of Iraq, one half of the newspaper fell into the lap of my fellow passenger. I turned to apologise, but he said: "No problem. Actually, do you mind if I have a look?"

Together we studied the picture, trying to work out how far the Americans were from seizing power. It was clear from the diagrams that troops were near Saddam's airport, and close to the centre of Baghdad. I turned to my seat mate and said: "I don't think this is going to be a long battle, after all."

It was only then that I noticed, with horror, that he had started to cry. And then I noticed something else: a photograph, wrapped in plastic, pinned to his lapel. It was a picture of his 20-year-old son, a young marine who died in the first days of the war. The man's wife was sitting across the aisle from us. She had a round bowl on her lap, filled with water and some drooping tulips. The movement of the aircraft was making the water slop around. She was trying to wipe her hands, and her tears.

The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son. At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

"But I never thought it was about the weapons," my seat mate said. And, although I can't remember his exact words, he also said something like: "We have always stood up for freedom, in our own country, and for other people."

(Emphasis added by Beldar.)  The White House has never publicized such meetings, or even permitted the fact that they've taken place to be leaked, ever.  But I'd bet my left arm there have been many such, conducted by the President himself or by his high-level designees.

However, this made me remember a New York Times op-ed written by Maureen Dowd on November 6, 2003, entitled "Death Be Not Loud," that consisted entirely of  character assassination:

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.

If there were perfect justice in the world, Maureen Dowd would have to crawl in sackcloth and ashes to the doorstep of the couple from Ms. Overington's story and give them the opportunity to kick her several times in the abdomen in front of an international television audience.  They'd refuse, of course โ€” and if there were perfect justice in the world, their refusal would only make the burning, bubbling pains running up and down Maureen Dowd's entire GI tract feel worse, much worse, as she crawled on bloody knees back to Times Square from North Carolina.

Posted by Beldar at 12:10 AM in Current Affairs, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink

TrackBacks

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Australians rock; MoDo is still slime and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


Comments

(1) Zarate made the following comment | Jan 23, 2004 1:02:59 PM | Permalink

Perhaps instead of wishing pain on her, you could instead drop her a note via the NY Times reader feedback page.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html

But, you know, whatever makes you feel best.

(2) Zarate made the following comment | Jan 23, 2004 1:06:52 PM | Permalink

FYI,
This appears to be her e-mail address:
liberties@nytimes.com

(3) Beldar made the following comment | Jan 23, 2004 7:14:46 PM | Permalink

An ironic email address indeed, given how she's known to take "liberties" with facts, quotes, etc.

The comments to this entry are closed.