The very day this editorial was published, Newsweek magazine published an article titled “How Bush Deals With Grieving Military Families.� I sincerely urge anyone who read this editorial to go pick up a copy, or go read the story online. You can find it at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8941525/site/newsweek/

While the Post accuses the President of trying to avoid the families of fallen war heroes, here’s the actual truth of the matter, according to Newsweek:

“Privately, Bush has met with about 900 family members of some 270 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The conversations are closed to the press, and Bush does not like to talk about what goes on in these grieving sessions.�

(Unlike the shameless publicity hounds who are exploiting Mrs. Sheehan, I might add.) The article goes on:

“Bush routinely asks to see the families of the fallen when he visits military bases... It does not appear that the White House or the military makes any effort to screen out dissenters or embittered families.�

Does that sound like someone whose "goal is to avoid answering" the families' questions? Remember, this is Newsweek -- certainly no one’s definition of a “right-wing� or “Bush-friendly� publication. The article also says, “Family members interviewed by NEWSWEEK say they have been taken aback by the president’s emotionalism and his sincerity.� It also notes that the meetings are especially hard for Mrs. Bush, “who sometimes accompanies Bush and looks devastated afterward.�

If you read nothing else, read the conclusion of the article, which describes one meeting last summer where the sister of a dead Marine had planned to angrily confront the President, but ultimately could not bring herself to do so when she recognized the obvious pain he was feeling. Newsweek says that, after spending several hours, talking to each individual for as long as he or she wanted, the President ended the meeting this way:

“Before Bush left the meeting, he paused in the middle of the room and said to the families, ‘I will never feel the same level of pain and loss you do. I didn’t lose anyone close to me, a member of my family or someone that I love. But I want you to know that I didn’t go into this lightly. This was a decision that I struggle with every day.’

“As he spoke, (she) could see the grief rising through the president’s body. His shoulder slumped and his face turned ashen. He began to cry and his voice choked...�

Does that sound even remotely like the heartless, uncaring person the Post is constantly lampooning in its snide editorials and in Don Wright's execrable cartoons? Does that sound like someone who “refuses� to meet grieving survivors? (Yes, “refuses� -- that’s the word these editors used.) If you’re not too disgusted yet, go back and re-read the last paragraph of this editorial, where the Post smugly informs us, “more mothers and fathers will be asking questions of President Bush. His goal is to avoid answering them.�

WHAT? That’s just a flat-out lie. There’s no other way to describe it. As Newsweek shows, his goal is NOT “to avoid answering them.� He seeks them out! He does NOT “refuse� to meet with them. He meets with them frequently, with no time limits -- and with no publicity. He and Mrs. Bush subject themselves to obviously devastating personal pain, over and over again, in hopes of providing some small measure of comfort.

And all the Post’s editors do in return is lie about him.

They literally make me sick.

Gary,

The Post NOT distorting a story would be something. This is just SOP for these DNC mouthpieces.

As always, so much here-Cindy Sheehan, WMD "lies", "insurgents", troop withdrawals.....
It's hard to find the real purpose of the editorial. But I think it's the Post's anger at President Bush for not giving Mrs. Sheehan another meeting.

What the media and the rest of the left don't seem to understand is the huge disconnect between Mrs. Sheehan's group and the American Military. The left sees our military as poor, uneducated kids who were duped into joining with hollow promises of cash and college. They were people with no hope that joined because there was nothing else for them in America.

This is such an insult to our soldiers. If I were in their place, hearing this kind of talk on the news everyday, I would wonder what was going on here at home. And I would be furious if my Commander-in-Chief appeased this group.

We have an all volunteer military. They are the finest, best trained in the world. They are dedicated to their mission as evidenced by the record numbers of re-enlistment. We should take great pride in these young people, instead of painting them as sniveling, ignorant dolts in our press for the whole world to see.

I have great compassion for Mrs. Sheehan. But I believe it is she who is being duped by left wing extremists who are using her pain for their politcal purposes. It soils her son's memory, and demoralizes his comrades who are still fighting.

And they all know the President is not coming out to their camp to meet her. He cannot, and expect those still serving to respect and follow him.

Cindy's son joined after 9/11 to go after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, as many of our volunteers did. EVERYONE was behind our troops and President Bush after the trauma of 9/11. What changed?

Bush began to implement the plan that he and his cronies had for many years, he dropped the ball on Bin Laden to go back to Iraq to get Saddam Hussein. He scared us into this war with lies and manipulation of intelligence. Then, against the advice of military command, he sent too few troops, too ill-equipped for this all-out war.

We got Saddam, but suddenly we're scratching our heads, saying "Where is Osama Bin Laden?" The president says he's not very concerned about him any anymore! Then, to add insult to injury,after we bombed the Hades out of a country that did nothing to us, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, and more than 1800 US soldiers are dead with no end in sight, he says that we have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11!

We don't even want to go into how many wounded will come home to find their Veterans benefits slashed! And it makes me ill to think we will probably tell them that they don't deserve any medals for what they did. Max Cleland lost 3 limbs in Viet Nam and was villified and slammed for it. John Kerry saved lives and won medals and was unmercifully butchered for his service to our country...by a group of neo-cons that never served a day of military service in their lives! The president actually went AWOL from the National Guard and he now asks us to give our kids for his "noble" cause!

Our war vets deserve so much better than this. They deserve the very best medical attention and the very best benefits available. The president shouldn't be "cutting" benefits. He should be "increasing" them! But, in their eyes, these service men and women didn't do enough. You have to "die" for their "noble cause" in order to deserve recognition. So when our wounded come home, all they can expect is cut benefits.

So many things have come out since Cindy's son died last year and she had her 3 minutes with Bush. The Downing Street Memos, revealed only weeks ago, give credence to the fact that Bush lied us into this war. By his own admission, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Billions of our tax dollars sent to Iraq are missing. Where did it go? Gas prices have gone through the roof here(wasn't Iraq supposed to pay for this war with their own oil?). Who is the beneficiary of these out-of-sight gas profits? So many questions.

Finally, after the 20 marines from Ohio died, King George remarked that they "died for a noble cause." Cindy's question is, "Exactly what noble cause did my son die for, Mr. President?" Cindy deserves an answer. Every American deserves an answer. Every innocent Iraqui deserves to know what they did to deserve this. There were no wmd...a lie! There were no chemical/biological rings around Baghdad...a lie! There were no Al queda...a lie. Alqueda is there now yes...because George Bush opened the doors and invited them in!

Oh what a wicked web we weave once we practice to deceive!

Why are we killing and being killed? What is this "culture of life" that Bush keeps talking about? Yes, we still support our troops, but we can't find it in our hearts to support this irresponsible, arrogant, lying, traitorus president. His only concern seems to be for helping his wealthy friends get wealthier. He and his administration are engaged in war-profiteering. They should resign if they have any care at all for the "culture of life". If they don't, can't or won't, they should be impeached. The American people are fed up. The polls reflect a spiraling down of approval for this president. True Republican Conservatives are beginning to see the light! First and foremost, we are Americans. Out with the Bushies and out with the neo-cons! In with true Americans who will honor and respect this country and our constitution. Let's return to "By the people, for the people", not by neo-cons for neo-cons or by corporations for corporations!

Cindy Sheehan and all mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc., deserve an answer, "for what noble cause, Mr. President?"

Sharon, do you work for Arianna Huffington? Or just spend your whole day reading the posts there?

Sharon,

I hardly know where to begin. Virtually every paragraph of your posting contains at least one blatant distortion, wild exaggeration or outright lie, starting with your very first sentence. Here are a half-dozen quick examples, taken almost at random:

1) You begin, “Cindy’s son joined after 9/11 to go after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.�

Wrong. Just 12 words into this piece, Sharon, and you already got the facts completely wrong. Casey Sheehan joined the Army in 2000 – more than a year BEFORE 9/11 and the Afghan war. “Going after� Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with it. According to the Associated Press, he also re-enlisted AFTER the Iraq War started. And he actually volunteered for the mission on which he died.

In other words, he wasn’t misled or tricked into serving, as you’re trying to imply here. He knew he would go to Iraq when he re-enlisted. Other news stories have reported the rest of his family has also said he believed strongly in his mission. He didn’t join to “go after� bin Laden and he wasn’t misled. What were you thinking? Did you think you could just spew this stuff out there and no one would bother to check the facts?

2) Then you write, “Bush began to implement the plan that he and his cronies had for many years.� Really? What “plan� is that, Sharon? Have you seen it? Is it written down somewhere? Does it have a name? What was the goal of this “plan�? Who came up with it? Who are these “cronies�? What role did they play in this “plan�? Do you have even a trace of evidence for any of this stuff? Or don’t you think you need to bother proving things -- just making the charge is good enough?

3) After that you veer off into pure fantasyland when you write, “it makes me ill to think we will probably tell them that they don’t deserve any medals for what they did.� What in God’s name are you talking about? Who among the President’s supporters has EVER suggested any such thing? YOU’RE the one questioning the validity of the war – why would any of US ever say they don’t deserve their medals? It doesn’t even make sense.

4) Then there’s this: “Max Cleland lost 3 limbs in Viet Nam and was villified and slammed for it.� No, Sharon. Wrong again. Max Cleland was NOT vilified for losing three limbs in Viet Nam. He was criticized for his vote on whether employees of the Homeland Security Department should be unionized. His Viet Nam service had absolutely nothing to do with it, and you know it. Or maybe you're trying to say that because he served in Viet Nam, no one is ever allowed to disagree with anything he says ever again. Is that what you’re trying to say? If so, then what do you say to millions of Viet Nam vets with whom YOU disagree?

5) You follow that with this whopper: “John Kerry saved lives and won medals and was unmercifully butchered for his service to our country...by a group of neo-cons that never served a day of military service in their lives.� The only truth in that sentence is that John Kerry did indeed win medals. But he was NOT “butchered for his service.� He was criticized for exaggerating it, for changing his version of it over and over, and for trying to capitalize on it after he had so publicly renounced it earlier.

And, as you well know, Sharon, the people criticizing Sen. Kerry were not “a bunch of neo-cons who never served a day in military service.� His most outspoken critics were his fellow Swift Boat commanders and other Viet Nam vets, most of whom had served four times as long in Viet Nam as he did. Again I ask you, Sharon, did you think you could just spew this crap out there and no one would notice your deliberate distortion? This isn’t “Democratic Underground� or “Moveon.org.� Some of the readers here actually pay attention to facts.

6) Then you claim, “The president actually went AWOL from the National Guard.� What evidence do you have of that? Has Dan Rather found another memo?

Okay, enough. I could go on listing more and more of your distortions, but frankly you aren’t worth it. I’ve given six clear examples of things you wrote that are either flat-out wrong, gross distortions or wilds claims for which you offer not even a shred of evidence. So here’s a personal challenge from me to you, Sharon:

Prove them.

Better still, prove just one of them. Prove that any single one of these half-dozen statements is true and accurate. Just ONE. If you can, I’ll apologize.

But if you can’t -- or won’t -- then I’ll state it plain and clear: You, Sharon, are a damn liar.

So why should anyone pay attention to anything you say?

Now go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Sorry for posting two comments in a row, but after re-reading my rather intemperate post from last night I feel I should clarify. Re-reading it this morning, I tried to understand why people like Sharon make me so angry. It’s not, as she and some others might suggest, that I view dissent as somehow unpatriotic or disloyal. What aggravates me, I think, is just how pitiful the dissent is. Instead of serious questions about serious issues, all we get is delusional rantings about imagined conspiracy theories and “neo-con� plots.

To be clear: I don’t quarrel with Sharon’s (or anyone’s) right to dissent and question the Bush administration. In fact, I think people SHOULD be asking questions. The Bush administration has probably mishandled many aspects of the Iraq situation, and there are serious criticisms that could be raised. For instance, why are we not doing a better job of stopping the terrorists and weapons from flowing into Iraq from Syria and Iran? Are our troop levels really where they should be? The President and Secretary Rumsfeld insist the generals on the ground have been given everything they asked for. But are we sure the generals are asking for the right things? And in enough quantities? For example, why didn’t they anticipate the need for more armored vehicles earlier?

Beyond tactical questions like these, there are even more fundamental questions that should be asked. For example, why are we trying so hard to keep Iraq from disintegrating into separate Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni states? I know everyone says that would be terrible – but why? What would be the problem? There may be good answers to these questions, but we’ll never know because none of the opposition is asking them.

Where are people like the late Sen. Moynihan, or Scoop Jackson, or even Sam Nunn? These were Democrats who posed serious questions and challenged their opponents to make a clear case for what they proposed. These were people who understood that the role of the opposition is to challenge the incumbent party to do better, not just score cheap points with photo-ops and sound bites. Maybe someone has taken their place and is doing that these days -- but, with the possible exception of Sen. Lieberman, I don't recall hearing about it. Could someone please direct me to the serious wing of the Democratic party?

Speaking for myself only, I would welcome hearing someone ask thoughtful questions about our role in Iraq. But all I hear about is a bunch of goofballs lighting candles, singing Kumbaya, and ranting about how this is all a scheme to make somebody’s “cronies� rich. Or how we invaded Iraq just to get control of their oil. (If so, then why can’t we control oil prices?) Or, as the increasingly delusional Mrs. Sheehan has said publicly, that the 9/11 attack might not have been launched by Osama bin Laden after all, but instead was a plot to advance what she called “their neo-con agenda.� This type of disjointed conspiracy-mongering is what passes for serious debate on the left these days, and the media just feed on it. Witness the Post's daily coverage of Cindy Sheehan (without once mentioning her anti-Semitic rantings, of course.)

What people like Sharon don’t seem to realize is that they are actually making future foreign policy mistakes MORE likely. Our policy-makers are not being asked SERIOUS questions. They aren’t being challenged to defend their reasoning, because the only dissenting voices we hear are such obvious loons that no one takes them seriously.

You want to dissent? Fine. Go ahead. But for Pete’s sake, get serious about it. There are important questions you could ask. Stop spouting off absolutely crazy half-baked conspiracy theories and start asking them.

Gary - there was nothing wrong with you first post. But the second really got to the meat, which is that all of this grandstanding is putting us all in more danger. Look at how the press is handling Col. Shaffer, which is to igore him. At this point, I don't care anymore if the finger gets pointed at my guy or their guy for 9/11 - I want to know that we recognized the mistake and fixed it.

The press ignores all the ridiculous things Mrs. Sheehan says (like the nuclear war we are running in Iraq) and continues the new chant, which is her "moral authority" because she lost her son. This is insanity-shall we assemble a conference for the moms of all soldiers killed in Iraq to make our future foreign policy decisions? How about the moms of soldiers in Afghanistan? Viet Nam? Do you get half a vote if your child was injured, but still living?

Mrs. Sheehan will fade away when her usefullness to the cause is gone. The press will forget her name. God help her in her grief then.

Nice job Gary and Kathy.

Unfortunately, we may develop a reputation that says you must know what you are talking about to post here or you will get crucified. Facts matter. Platitudes and conspiracy theories get killed. And, you better be reading more than just the Post or you are seriously uninformed.

Now, don't you just wish that Randy would let us at the letters to the editor? It would seriously cut down on the volume if these guys knew they would get responses. It would also raise the level of discourse.

Check out the letter today in praise of Maureen Dowd. I would like to seriously "have at" that one.

Rick

Thanks, Kathy and Rick,

As usual, both of you were able to take what I was wrestling with and say it so much more clearly and succinctly.

Kathy, your example of Col. Shaeffer was right on target -- like you, I no longer care which administration was in power when mistakes were made. Let's just get to the bottom of it.

Rick, I take your point about scaring people away. That's why I felt the need for my last post. I think it's their smugness that sets me off -- when they're so insufferably sure of something that's just not so.

As to your thoughts about taking on that Maureen Dowd fan in today's letters section, that would have to go down as one of the great mismatches of all time.

Thanks again for the comments.