If quality and ethics were a factor in media personnel decisions, Maureen Dowd would have been demoted or fired some time ago. Christian Lowe details the new-told lie:
"Yes, the president's Oct. 29 trip to Dover Air Force base in the dark of night to greet a C-17 carrying fallen Americans killed in Afghanistan was a vivid example of the reality of that war and should pause to those who call for increased commitment there. And it was honorable of Obama to see for himself the human cost of his decisions -- as every commander and chief should.
But to reflexively defend the photo op engineered to create news about the president's "sobering reminder" by claiming that the man who got us into Afghanistan in the first place never faced them is just plain bunk....
We wrote a wide-ranging investigative piece on the conduct of the services during the killed-in-action notification process and the support they provided along the way.... For, unlike Dowd, who I doubt has ever spoken with the family of a fallen servicemember, I was forced to confront the world I obliquely reported from afar -- to hear the quavering voices of mothers whose sons had been obliterated by roadside bombs. And you know who else did that very same thing dozens of times in his eight years as president?"
You can guess where this is going...
"In my conversations with those who sacrificed a son, a husband, a brother, or a boyfriend, all were universally grateful for George W. Bush's sincere -- and private -- conversations with them either before or directly after an event or speech at a military base. As a routine, Bush would meet behind closed doors with family members who'd lost loved ones as part of his stop at military installations.
These were not simply pro-war, anti-war, pro-Bush or anti-Bush families -- they were all of the above. Some were against the Iraq war; others were steadfast, despite their unimaginable sacrifice, for victory there. But to a man and women, these grieving Americans appreciated the president's heartfelt compassion and deep understanding of their sacrifice -- and of the weight of the decision to send potentially more of America's young to their deaths."
I'm not sure this will matter to a narcissist viper like Ms. Dowd, because I doubt that truth means very much to her. She has a narrative to sell, and lies are justified in the telling.
Bill Whittle has a pretty good video post about that mentality, which actually has a strong set of philosophical defenders and underpinnings in the Left.
It's a philosophically valuable piece, albeit not nearly as funny as his "The Dowd Conundrum" Star Trek episode takeoff, complete with sets. Hell of a Shatner imitation, Bill, and an interesting point or two along the way about intellectuals and power.
Here is the offending piece.
In particular, the charge of low morals and lack of veracity, appear to relate to this part:
As someone who enjoys Dowd as a witty and entertaining satirist of politics I can tell you that none of her regular readers would take her to mean that she was accusing Bush of never having talked to the families of fallen soldiers, or given speeches at military bases. I think there is a consensus across the political spectrum that W. did empathy very well, and noone doubts his sincerity.
I think the piece is pretty clear that she was commenting on the inconsistency of those who, unlike Mr. Lowe, accuse Obama as pandering for a photo op, where they never would have done so with Bush. She was not being literal with "since it's Obama who at last showed up."
If we're ever going to make progress towards a more civil discourse, we'll need to develop a slightly thicker skin so we don't have to vilify each other with every perceived (or misperceived) slight.
narcissist viper like Ms. Dowd
Vipers are what they are. Ms. Dowd, OTOH, looks looks like an aging lady who has sucked on one too many lemons. The cute photo that goes with her column is way out of date.
Oh come, Roland,
But since it’s Obama who at last showed up there to see the brutal cost of war
The implication is that Bush isolated himself from the brutal realities of war. Now it may be that Obama makes a point of meeting with the families of the fallen on a regular basis and visits the VA hospitals, but I doubt it. For if that were the case it would be all over the news all the time, just like his going out to get a hamburger. Regular Joe, caring man, etc., etc. What was striking about his visit to the base was that it was the exception, not the rule.
Dowd is every bit as worthless as our host makes her out to be.
Katzman has set up a straw man argument.
Liz Cheney (do Republicans have any young champions who aren't political children?) made a specific claim that W met coffins arriving at Dover but, unlike Obama, with no press coverage at all. This claim wasn't so much pro-W as anti-Obama, and, whatever other sympathy W showed, it was, as far as anyone can show, totally false. W does not appear to have gone to Dover, with or without press, even once.
I'll let y'all Google for Obama's visits to VA hospitals, but here's a hint: just because Limbaugh doesn't mention something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Andrew, I get it that you & Joe won't be sending Christmas cards, but can I ask you to step back a bit and lower your temperature? Joe didn't refer to Liz Cheney's claim, which is an independent issue. He, I think correctly, is hammering Dowd because her claim, stripped bare, is that Bush didn't care about the troops who were killed in "his" war.
Can we at least agree that that claim is without merit> And start to try and construct a shared reality from there?
Marc
Maureen Dowd would have been demoted or fired some time ago. Christian Lowe details the new-told lie
She has a narrative to sell, and lies are justified in the telling
What lie? Sorry if I'm dense, but I don't see what lie(s) you are referring to.
Since Lowe didn't link to the column of Dowd's he's offended by (nor did Katzman), nor did he quote from it (nor did Katzman), I have to assume that Nikles in #1 is providing the correct link.
Lowe (& Katzman) totally misrepresent the content of Dowd's column. I have to wonder if Katzman even bothered to read it. Either that or Nikles is linking to the wrong piece of Dowd's, because there is no defense of the Dover photo-op. There's a mention of it, but only to make the point that had it been Bush, Limbaugh would have cheered it, not jeered it. The whole piece is about Limbaugh, not Obama or Bush or the military.
This is one of the most misleading posts I've ever read on WoC. I get it that Katzman hates Dowd, and while there may be ample reason for his hatred, it sure isn't presented here.
Yeah, Joe isn't on my Rosh Hashana list. But mark has it nailed here. I don't like Dowd, either (her treatment of Al Gore would be one reason), but the instant complaint against her is completely non-specific and Joe's defense of W is against a straw argument that isn't supported by any Dowd column he quoted. Indeed, this would have all be a non-issue if it weren't for Cheney Jr. and Limbaugh attacking Obama over it, with untruths. How this turned into Dowd's problem escapes me, and probably others.
Actually, I'm fairly sure Roland's reference is to the wrong Dowd piece. Lowe's op-ed refers to her "weekend article", which would be this one. It is much more direct in its criticism of Bush's handling of Dover, among other things saying 43's handling of Dover was "trying to airbrush the evidence that the wars he started were not the cakewalks he had promised"... "reflect(ing) an emotional and spiritual smallness typical of his administration". She also earlier references "W., the president who started the Iraq war in a haze of fakery and then declined to ever confront the reality of its dead."
Tagryn #8 appears to have provided the correct link referenced in the original post, and here is the relevant quote from that:
The assertion of fact here is that Bush 1) occasionally visited the wounded and the families of those killed, 2) he never went to Dover to salute the fallen, and 3) that he never attended a funeral of any war dead. I think it's beyond dispute that the Bush administration barred the press from the arrival of war dead. The observation that this was an attempt to "airbrush" the evidence and that this was indicative of "spriritual smallness typical of his administration" is fair game for an opinion piece.
Which leaves us with the asertion that Bush never went to Dover to receive war dead, as Obama recently did, and that he never attended a funeral as the supposed "lies."
So, the burden is on the accusers to refute the allegation (1) as mistaken and (2) that Dowd knew better. However, Lowe provides nothing of the sort. Lowe quotes an "investigative" piece "We" did:
The reporter is undisclosed. The quote is consistent with Dowd's acknowledgment that Bush occasionally met with the wounded and the families of those killed. More importantly, an unattributed report of meeting behind closed doors as part of his stop at military installations to give a speech or attend an event is a far cry from evidence that Bush met the fallen dead at Dover, or that he attended a funeral.
Armed Liberal in # 5 suggests that the source of the animus is not that Dowd "lied" about Dover (or anything else) but that she implies Bush didn't care about the fallen in his war. That seems right, as suggested the follwoing in the Lowee quote:
But of course Dowd never says Bush didn't care about the war dead. That is a manufactured charge. It's fair game to disagree with the tenor of Dowd's opinion, but to do so by saying she lied, that she lacks ethics, or that she should have been fired long ago without delivering the goods to back up the charge demonstrates a lack of rigor unworthy of a a blog that attempts to be serious.
The reason Dowd is popular is she is witty and inventive in delivering her opinions. Noone does snide better. Whether you agree with her opinion or not, there is something to be learned there.
The assertion of fact here is that Bush 1) occasionally visited the wounded and the families of those killed, 2) he never went to Dover to salute the fallen, and 3) that he never attended a funeral of any war dead.
Missed it by >that< much.
While Bush occasionally visited... he never...
It's a yes-but sentence intended to dismiss Bush's visits while promoting Obama's. This interpretation is reinforced by the later reference to autopens and accusing Wolfowitz of deliberate deception.
And he barred any media coverage of it, trying to airbrush the evidence that the wars he started were not the cakewalks he had promised.
That is simple calumny. "Airbrush the evidence," really? Bush is some sort of criminal or what?
If the point of Obama's visit to Dover was about the casualties, how come what we get instead are a bunch of articles and opinions extolling the wonderfulness of Obama for, you know, caring? Unlike that awful Bush. It might lead one to think that that was the whole point of the exercise.
I think you are missing one of Dowd's points: that by avoiding any public connection with the bereaved, Bush was able to minimize any acknowledgment that the Iraq Adventure's casualties were much higher than the Mission Accomplished cakewalk predictions. I am not 100 percent sure I agree with her on this one point. I will grant that Dowd has a low opinion of Bush. That apparently rankles Lowe (and Katzman) enough that they accuse her of "lying". No one has yet pointed out anything factually inaccurate, so there is no lie here.
On the other hand, there is no question that Liz Cheney was lying, or at least completely mistaken. But, I guess, in a good cause?!
Lazarus, Dowd implies that Bush avoided public connection in order to avoid acknowledging casualties. I expect he avoided the public connection in order to avoid a public circus and the accusation that he was just putting on a show for his own political purposes. Note that Obama is now accused of putting on a show and exploiting the event as a photo op for political purposes. The coverage of the event, not least Dowd's piece, certainly make it look that way, the coffin just sort of sits in the background while Obama is front and center. If he didn't intend it that way, then he is frankly a bit stupid. If he did intend it that way, then he is without class. It's lose-lose as far as I am concerned.
As to Dowd, she may only be guilty of mind reading and unsupported accusations of nefarious motives on Bush's part. As I used to say of Reagan, if someone doesn't know they are lying, are they actually lying or merely ignorant.
As to Cheney, she is an innocent bystander in this discussion. She has nothing to do with Dowd and you brought her up to endulge the old rhetorical trick of tu qouque. It's not a valid argument and I suspect you know as much. So I'll leave it be. I don't know if Bush visited Dover and neither do you.
As to Cheney, she is an innocent bystander in this discussion.
She is neither. She is not innocent, in that her claim that Bush went to Dover but without cameras is totally false. Not even Fox News has come up with records of a Bush visit to Dover and the people who met Obama there said Bush had never been. And it's not as if Cheney, when challenged, is devoid of resources to help find this mysterious Bush visit. So I think I do know whether W went to Dover: he didn't. If you have some evidence otherwise, be my guest. I'll even consider a wager. (Whether Cheney knew her claim was false, I don't know.)
Nor is she a bystander. There wasn't any initial media circus about Obama at Dover; he went late, took only token accompaniment, and allowed photos only at the very end. The clowns in the circus were Cheney and Limbaugh. Obama can't live his life hoping to keep them from criticizing his every more: as we can see, when the facts don't suffice they just make stuff up.
The heroes speak. (link)
It's good when the people getting adulation deserve it. I hope many kids think "I want to be like him," or "I want to be like her."