"we have the same pain"

It would be a monumental mistake for us to get into a fight with military families (both Blue and Gold Star) who still support Bush. As I said previously, this is precisely what Bush wants us to do.

Once again, Cindy Sheehan shows the way:

And there are other people who disagree with our position who have lost their children. I know with Karen here, and Melanie and Susan, we respect their rights to their opinions. At the end of the day�or at the beginning of this quest, we started in the same way � with our loved one coming home in a flag-draped coffin. And if there is any family who says that they believe their child died for a noble cause, I say that is your right, if that helps you get through the day, if that helps you in your pain. Because we might not have the same politics, but trust me, we have the same pain. And we do what we have to do to get through our pain, and we hope they respect us for that. We respect them in any way they have to do to get through their pain.

Love me, love my policies

The accounts are only anectdotal, but from this Salon story on Bush's meeting with the families of fallen soldiers one impression stands out: Bush appears genuine and caring to those who support his actions but put off and disengaged when confronted with even the slightest suggestion that there might be a better way:

Some families praised Bush. "He was very personable," Sherri Orlando said in a telephone conversation from Fort Campbell, Ky., where she works in the Fort Campbell public affairs office. Orlando's husband, Army Lt. Col. Kim S. Orlando, was killed when a group of Iraqis opened fire on him and fellow soldiers on a road near a mosque in Karbala, Iraq, in October 2003. "He was very sincere. He was very sympathetic. It was delightful meeting with him."

Bush met Orlando and others at a museum on base. "He expressed his condolences," she said. "To me, it happened so quickly. You are kind of at a loss for words. I told him that my husband believed in what he was doing and he supported the mission over there."

Roxanne Kaylor met the president at the White House on Memorial Day in 2003. Her son, Army 1st Lt. Jeffrey J. Kaylor, had been killed in a grenade attack in Iraq in April 2003. She described Bush as "gracious" but disengaged and unresponsive when pressed with uncomfortable questions. "He held my hand," she said. "I turned to him and I said, 'Jeff was a great person. It is too bad he had to die so early in life. I hope his death was not in vain.' He just stared at me. He said nothing. He just stared at me. He did not let go of my hand."

Bush is still a coward

He can't face Cindy Sheehan directly, so he drafts a military family to fight his battle for him.

It's so obvious that Bush wants military families to fight with each other. That way the heat will be taken off him. He has two goals: (1) distract the media with a more comelling "military families fighting" story and (2) distract his critics by getting them to waste time fighting with Bush supporters.

This is why it is vitally important that we not engage in a fight with military families that still support Bush and his little adventure in Iraq. We should take a cue from Cindy Sheehan whose response to similar confrontations at Camp Casey has been to commisserate with the families and give them a shoulder to cry on if needed.

The military families that support Bush are not the issue. The war is the issue. Never forget that.

Bush is a coward

George Bush wants military families to fight with each other so that he doesn't have to answer difficult questions.

There are few things more difficult in life than seeing a loved one go off to war, and here in Idaho, a mom named Tammy Pruitt�knows that feeling six times over.

Tammy has four sons serving in Iraq right now with the Idaho National Guard � Eric, Evan, Greg, and Jeff. Last year, her husband Leon and another son Aaron returned from Iraq where they helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul.

Tammy says this � and I want you to hear this � �I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country. And I guess you couldn�t ask for a better way of life than giving it for something you believe in.�

America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruitts.

Bush wants military men and women to fight his war in Iraq and he wants their families to fight his war in America.

Bush finally defines the mission in Iraq

SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, speaking amid protests and growing public unease over Iraq, said on Monday America owed it to the more than 1,800 U.S. soldiers killed there to complete the mission, which he linked with the campaign against terrorism.

Shorter version: The mission in Iraq is to give meaning to the mission in Iraq.

Scrambling for table scraps

You've probably heard it before: experienced political professionals say that it would be suicide for Democrats to express "leftist principles" because the majority of Americans don't like "leftist principles". All the polling tells them so. They pull out this argument any time they deal with those of us who want the Democrats to put more effort into contrasting their principles with those of the Republicans (not so much because want an ideological debate but because we are convinced that Democrats won't have a chance of winning unless they offer a message more compelling then "go with the flow").

Yet these experienced political professionals rarely bother to ask why "leftist principals" aren't liked by the majority of Americans (aside: I actually don't agree that "leftist principals" are that disliked by the American people. But that is another discussion for another day. For now lets just use this point as a working assumption.) Is it because the American people have considered "leftist principles" in a calm, reasoned manner and rejected them as wanting? Or is it because right-wingers have engaged in a 20 year program to smear anything that even remotely smells of "leftist principles" and Democrats, suffering from post traumatic stress disorder from the battles of the 70s and 80s, have let them get away with it?

Did these experienced political professionals ever stop to think that maybe the people might actually reconsider "leftist principles" if some politicians actually stood up for them and defended them against the smears? Did they ever stop to think that maybe the people might actually support "leftist principles" if they saw politicians who supported them as well?

No, these experienced political professionals would just rather concede the point, declare the Right the political victors, and spend their time debating how to divvy up the crumbs that fall from the Republican table.

Fuck that noise.

Losing sight of the important stuff

timber, a commenter to this dKos post by Armando, gets right to the heart of the matter:

Democrats are doing it again

I think the discussion should be what is the right thing to do about Iraq. Not what will make Democrats look good.

Both sides of the divide within the Democratic party are falling into the trap of focusing their analysis of Iraq on the political consequences to Democrats come 2006/2008. Many of the arguments about what to do in Iraq get bogged down into what will be good for the party. Timber rightly points out that there is a much bigger issue involved here: what will be good for America, good for Iraq and good for the World.

It is this kind of political prognistication that turns so many people off politics (and I'm getting rather sick of it myself). We are talking about real lives here, not electoral votes.

This is probably why the Cindy Sheehan story has proven to be so compelling: she isn't political in her actions (despite the best attemts of Drudge, et. al to suggest that she is). She is just a mother wanting to know why she know longer has the son she spend 20+ years raising. She wants to know what "noble cause" her baby died for.

Her actions are not predicated on what will be good/bad for either Democrats or Republicans. It is predicated on her need for answers and her desire to stop more death.

Those who spend days/weeks/months pouring over polling data forget that those numbers represent real people with real hopes and real fears. They don't care about whether a particular stance will help or hurt the prospects of one party or another. They just want their concerns dealt with.

Isn't that what we all want?