Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Uninformed Snark
Posted by: MichaelW on Monday, December 22, 2008

As if to underscore how blind the Joe Gandelman post that McQ dismantled was — i.e. that right-wing rhetoric is cranking up unprecedented nastiness — FireDogLake revs up its BDS engines and sets the phasers to kill.
Today’s headline news, in all its various establishment media permutations, was full of stories about Still-President George W. Bush paying a visit to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center this morning. A couple added that this was the site of one of his administration’s most serious scandals.

[...]

When I heard the story, I smirked and shook my head in disgust, figuring it was just another lame, lame duck attempt at legacy burnishing.

Well, it was that, but it was so much more. . . or less.

It turns out, as is now being reported, that Bush had an MRI this morning at Walter Reed for a chronic pain in his left shoulder. Yes, that’s right. Bush went to WRAMC because he wasn’t feeling well.

I suppose it’s a chicken and egg thing. . . kind of. It certainly would have looked bad if word had gotten out that Bush was at the medical center and didn’t stop in to look after the men and women who owe their disability checks to his vainglorious boondoggle. But would George W. have gone out there at all if he hadn’t had his own needs to look after?

My guess is a certain “no.”
(my emphasis)

The author of the above post, Gregg Levine, does his level best to deliver the snark, painting President Bush as a cowardly, insincere boob who lacks any empathy or compassion for the troops. According to Levine, Bush is so cowardly and uncaring that he simply wouldn't ever visit the troops if he didn't have to.
Bush, even at his most “engaged” was never big on confronting his mistakes—especially ones made so (pardon this) flesh. The man was, is, and will forever be a reality chicken.

Now, as anyone looking at an unemployment check will confirm, the decider has decided he’s decided enough. He’s over it, done his bit, given what he can give. You don’t like him being president any more? Fine, he just won’t be.

So, while it’s just me s’posin’, I’m going to say that if Bush hadn’t felt the need, there’s no way he goes to Reed.

Which might have been just fine with the brave men and women confronting reality every day. . . whether they choose to or not.
Unfortunately for Levine, he's picked the wrong day to let his BDS get the best of him:
For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country.

On Monday, the president is set to make a more common public trip - with reporters in tow - to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, home to many of the wounded and a symbol of controversy earlier in his presidency over the quality of care the veterans were receiving.

But the size and scope of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's private endeavors to meet with wounded soliders and families of the fallen far exceed anything that has been witnessed publicly, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials familiar with the effort.

"People say, 'Why would you do that?'" the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. "And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be - to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish."

Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching - balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin - that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support.

"I lean on the Almighty and Laura," Mr. Bush said in the interview. "She has been very reassuring, very calming."

Mr. Bush also has met privately with more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, according to White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. Many of those meetings were outside the presence of the news media at the White House or at private sessions during official travel stops, officials said.
Oops.

It was a rather juvenile rant from Levine in the first place, but doing so on the very day that hundreds of non-public meetings with families of the fallen and with wounded soldiers are disclosed just makes him look rather petty and absurd. I guess that's what happens when you're part of the reality-based community.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Just remember the key to Reality Based living in the Hate Bushieth century.

Reality-Basing means things are the way you want them to be, not what they actually ARE. This is a step beyond the old view that perception is reality, although that does remain a fundamental building block in reality based living.

Details and/or truth generally clutter the narrative and distract the reader from the important part, which is your message (hate Bush).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This coming from the "we support our soldiers when they shoot their officers" party is particularly amusing.

Can libs please stop acting like they care about the troops?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I hate Bush, but for pretty much the opposite reasons the left hate him.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
4,000 letters? I’ve been to a few memorial services, and talked to a few CAOs (casualty assistance officers) and from what I’ve gathered, it’s quite emotionally draining. It’s really hard to imagine writing 4,000 letters to families.

And to the hours of his time it consumed, if it was half an hour per letter, that’s a 50 weeks working 40 hours a week writing letters. That’s a Herculean feat in itself.
 
Written By: ben
URL: http://
Say anything you like about the man’s policies, but he evidently cares deeply about the human beings he sends into war. He’s got my respect for that.
 
Written By: Brown
URL: http://
Even IF the man didn’t see all those troops, what IF he paid a visit while there on a personal errand? What’s wrong with that?

Don’t you maximize your time? If I go visit my old tired aunt while I happen to be on that side of town, is that wrong? That I get a "two-fer" for my trip over to that side of town makes me a bad person?

Now think of one of the busiest people in the World - someone who has all sorts of people clamoring for his time.

So even without this news about Bush today, it shows that the author is just a pr%$k. And I’ll bet he doesn’t make special visits to see his old tire aunt either.
 
Written By: whatever
URL: http://
Compare Barack Obama canceling his vist to Walter Reed because he couldn’t bring the press with him to this story, and recalculate.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Michael W - Unfortunately for Levine, he’s picked the wrong day to let his BDS get the best of him...

You are implying that there is such a thing as Objective Truth to which we all must bow.

This idea is completely alien to libs. To borrow from the motto of the MSM, they’ve got their story and they’re stickin’ to it: Bush is a callous, lying coward who doesn’t give two snaps of his beer- and coke-encrusted fingers about the troops whom he sent to die in Iraq for Halliburton and votes. Lefties believe this with a religious fervor, and no evidence to the contrary will shake their conviction.

Incidentally, I thought Walter Reed was a total s***hole, a filthy, dilapidated hovel where a cruel and heartless Bush sent out wounded men to die in squalor. Yet, he goes there when he needs medical care. Strange, don’t you think?

kyleN - I hate Bush, but for pretty much the opposite reasons the left hate him.

While I’ve lost almost every bit of respect that I ever had for George Bush as president, I still have respect and good feelings for him as a decent man whom I’d be honored to meet. The WaPo article shows one reason why:

Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching - balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin - that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support.

"I lean on the Almighty and Laura," Mr. Bush said in the interview. "She has been very reassuring, very calming."


And he did almost all of this outside the public eye, so there’s not even a hint of suspicion that he was doing it for his own self-aggrandizement. He did it because, no matter how fumbling or boneheaded he may be, he’s a good man trying to do the hardest job in the world.

God bless him.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
He did it because, no matter how fumbling or boneheaded he may be, he’s a good man trying to do the hardest job in the world.
There is a lot I don’t like about how he handles things but I agree with the above statement
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I posted recently something very sympathetic to President Bush. But the fact is that people left and right consider him a failed President. The Iraq war is almost uniformally viewed as a mistake and a disaster. That’s where the public is; there has been a real shift in this country in terms of political persective thanks to the Iraq war and the current economic crisis. People are moving rapidly away from an aggressive militaristic foreign policy and from unregulated markets focused on trickle down and helping the elite. We are seeing a seismic shift in America’s political direction, like it or not. We’ve been living beyond our means for a quarter of a century, and vastly overestimating our power. Reality is being brought home to us in a way we can’t ignore or brush aside.

All that said, I generally like President Bush, and don’t think he deserves all the vitriol hurled his way. Vice President Cheney, on the other had, is someone I’ve never much cared for.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
I
posted recently something very sympathetic to President Bush.
How even handed of you.
The Iraq war is almost uniformally viewed as a mistake and a disaster.
Eric Blair, white courtesy phone, please.
Mr. Eric Blair, white courtesy phone.

You are almost uniformally viewed as a nutjob, Erb... and totally disconnected from reality.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I’m providing a link here in the hope of increasing my page hits, suckering you in by claiming it’s sympathetic to President Bush. The fact is that plenty of conservatives and libertarians consider him a failed President, just not for the reasons that leftists say "Bush=Hitler." The Iraq war is almost uniformally viewed as a mistake and a disaster by Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese, who sold weapons to Saddam while turning a blind eye to his attacking neighboring countries, kidnapping Americans, and killing his own people; the UN, who doesn’t like the U.S. exercising its own sovereignty; and last but not least, America-hating liberals and Saddam Hussein apologists/sympathizers. So when I claim "That’s where the public is," it’s only what I wish the public believed.

There has been a real shift in this country in terms of more and more people wanting the government to take care of them, cradle to grave, courtesy of others’ tax dollars. I would like to say with a straight face that people are moving rapidly away from an aggressive militaristic foreign policy, except that even Barack Obama says he’d invade Pakistan without its leaders’ permission to chase al Qaeda. What’s true is that Americans are falling for the left’s myth that the American economy is somehow "deregulated." Consequently they’re shifting from the capitalist ideals of laboring for yourself and yourself alone, to the ideal of the nanny state.

We are seeing a seismic shift in America’s political direction, like it or not. We’re entering a new era that combines FDR’s failed New Deal, Nixon’s failed Keynesianism and wage-price controls, and Jimmy Carter’s disastrous diplomacy. We’ve been living beyond our means for a quarter of a century, except that it’s our creditors who are in far worse shape, and we’ve vastly overestimated our power, except that it’s more than anyone else could wield.

I would like to claim that I like President Bush, and that I don’t think he deserves all the vitriol hurled his way, but you all know my leftist rhetoric enough to not believe that for a second. And of course I hate Vice President Cheney. And Karl Rove the most. IMPEACH ROVE! YEAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
 
Written By: Ott Scerb II
URL: http://
Scott,

There may have been a real shift in this country in terms of political perspective thanks to the Iraq war and the current economic crisis, but I’m wondering if it’s not just temporary.

I have no doubt that people voted for change, and in my opinion, a large majority voted for change just for the sake of change, not realizing what they were even voting for. The just got caught up in the parade.

But I’m anxious to see what happens when people, including tons of young people and new immigrants who came to this country to get away from their old situations, will feel after the government starts taking their money and spending it on programs that don’t end poverty, don’t improve education or healthcare, and create a whole new class of government dependents that they will be forced to support.

Believing, as I do, that human nature doesn’t change no matter what political party is in power, you may just end up with a boatload of p*ssed off people who will get tired of the government making promises they can’t possibly pull off, and we may get another "Reagan Revolution" of sorts. We may just circle around.

It will be interesting, but I think hard working people eventually get tired of feeling like they are supporting irresponsibility, and will get tired of their wallets being raped for so called "dogoooder programs" that accomplish zilch.
A lot of the voters who voted for "Change" just haven’t experienced it enough, but they will.
 
Written By: autot
URL: http://
There is an old joke, one I always laugh at:

There are two brothers. The first goes to school, graduates, gets a great job, makes a ton of money, then goes into politics and rises to become a successful US Senator who makes a name for himself by pushing for great reforms of American society.

The other brother goes to school, drops out, becomes a drug abuser, does little with his life, until he also hears the calling of politics. He runs for mayor of his city and wins, but in his first term is caught up in scandal and is forced to resign.

The first brother is a Republican. The press will protray him, when he dies, as a money-grubbing pedantic old fart who sucked off the teat of his country.

The second brother is a Democrat. The press, always on top of things, tells its reader when he dies that he was a fair student who never lived up to his great potential, who tried to help his fellow man, and who served the people doing public service until a political hack brought him down via a scandal through unproven allegations.

That is the history of bias in the American media. And it is disgusting.


 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
So Scott Erb is your resident troll. Got it. Still trying to learn the names and personalities.

"almost uniformally viewed as a mistake and a disaster"

Yes, to you and your fellow non productive academic dead enders. I was not for escalating action in Iraq (there was always military action in Iraq), but a disaster? By what metric?

"from unregulated markets"

Where would those be? We have a free market? Not so much, anymore. Oh, yeah who was the guy saying that something had to be done in regards to the two quazi government mortgage giants? You know, more over seeing of them? I forgot his name.
 
Written By: RFN
URL: http://
Erb, assume ad arguendo that every word in your post is true. It’s still a complete non sequitur.
 
Written By: Phil Smith
URL: http://
Typical biased MSM media, they also report that 9 in 10 people disapprove of the VP while completely disregarding the 1 in 10 that approve.
 
Written By: TomD
URL: http://
So Scott Erb is your resident troll. Got it. Still trying to learn the names and personalities.
Well, no.
Trolls, in my view just don’t care, and they’re out strictly to be a pain in the ass, whereas Erb takes himself very seriously indeed. I suppose someone’s got to, but trust me when I say he’s the only one who does.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Yes. TomD is a troll; Prof. Erb is an academic ideologue with delusions of objectivity.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider