Sensitivity

It was a foolish thing for her to say. It is a bit ironic to post a criticism of her poor choice of words to express the fact that they are personally affected by military casualties under the heading "sensitivity," however. Your anti-Bush vitriol is showing- again. Especially with posting the same issue twice.

I'm down on the Bush family, and no longer see the oint of this war. But parsing her poor choice of words is uncalled for, something I would not expect to find here.

With all due respect, Rod, I think you either misunderstood what she meant, or are making a mountain of a molehill. She said she and President Bush suffer as much as anybody WATCHING this---not someone who experiences it, either as a soldier or a loved one of a soldier. And it may well be true---even if Bush does still believe that Iraq is winnable or moral, knowing he is causing all these problems for people must give him grief. I don't think she meant it the way you seem to be reading it. God bless.

One of the reasons I come to this site is that while it is comfortable for me to base my opinion of American politics on left wing sites (like say crooksandliars) I'd prefer not to get a lobsided view. Unfortunately most right wing bloggers I have read end up coming across as nuts. This one didn't so I stuck around. Please Rod don't end up posting cheap shorts based on deliberate misinterpretation , there is plenty of stuff to be angry about without making something out of nothing.

Look. Every time someone says (again) on this blog something in reference to Rod's 'anti-Bush bias', I want to say: Rod voted for Bush twice. And believed in him, supported him, defended him .until systematically he became disillusioned by the incompetence. Horrified by the spending, angered by the earmark 800% increase during the 6 years when all 3 branches were GOP, disgusted by Harriet Miers nomination, broken by the Katrina 'Brownie' debacle, and what else? Oh yes, the war in Iraq. Almost forgot. Need I continue? In other words, if any thing about Rod is 'anti-Bush', the President and those he trusted are responsible. His disaffection was hard-earned and drip-by-drip painful.

I don't know about anti-Bush-isms, or anything of that nature, but I, too was struck by your choice to title the piece "Sensitivity."
Were you referring to her sensitivity or yours?

Maybe this is a better example of "sensitivity". "I don't think you're ever going to get rid of all the car bombs," Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said this week. "Iraq is going to have to learn as did, say, Northern Ireland, to live with some degree of sensational attacks."

And you would have wanted her to say...what? Maybe sing Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

Please stop your outrageous disrespect for President Bush. Disagreement is fine. Childish and snide insults are unbecoming.

Cheap, Mr. Dreher. You've shown more compassion and sensitivity to Cho than you have to Laura Bush.

I wonder if Ms. Clinton is suffering as much as the families seeing she voted to send them over there in the first place....and we all know that no one has more compassion than the Clinton's.

Laura Bush is OK. I don't agree with her taste in men. She could have done better.
I get what she was trying to say. I believe that the situation in Iraq causes her distress. Who knows? It might bother her husband now and then. I think that they both believe that this war was justified. I would imagine that the casualties and injuries sustained by our servicemen/women in Iraq are easier to swallow if you think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I think that you all are being a little hard on Rod. He's still rather new in coming to the realization that this administration is incompetent. Afterall, as another poster pointed out, he voted for the guy. Many of us were this angry four years ago. It's justified anger, but eventually, Rod will have to let it go.

And you would have wanted her to say...what? Maybe sing Where Have All the Flowers Gone? How about simply, "The president is suffering along with the troops and their families. It's a terrible burden he bears as commander in chief." It's the "nobody suffers more than" that galls, especially because they don't have family members in the field under fire.

Rod: "It's the 'nobody suffers more than' that galls, especially because they don't have family members in the field under fire." Me: At worst, Mrs. Bush made an inartful choice of words in a spontaneous interview. Why assume she meant these words at their face value, or said them deliberately and with forethought? What satisfaction is gained from thinking of her as a bad, insensitive person?

"It's the "nobody suffers more than" that galls, especially because they don't have family members in the field under fire." Stands to reason. "What satisfaction is gained from thinking of her as a bad, insensitive person?" Not a bad, insensitive person. Just a bad, insensitive comment.

"On what grounds do you assume that she didn't mean it, and doesn't in fact think that she and her husband are suffering as much as anybody else in this war?" [I don't know how to do italics on these comment boxes.] From her track record, Rod. From her body of work, if you will. She doesn't have a history of making thoughtless, insensitive comments. I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt because of her performance in public life over at least the last 7 years. She seems to be a good and decent person. And a reasonable one. The reasonable person would never say that "We are suffering more than those who were actually wounded." That would be a ridiculous statement to make, and that cannot have been her meaning.

I had no idea that Austin, Texas was a haven for Clinton fans.
If Bush had a child in the army or marines, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

"If Bush had a child in the army or marines, we wouldn't be in Iraq." You might be right. Then again, you might be wrong. The bottom line is, neither one of us really knows. You have made an assertion with zero support for it.

Yes, Rod, I understood that it was sarcasm, which again, points to the irony of it.

Well, you don't have to read it, but honestly, is it the case that criticizing the First Lady is unpatriotic? How about the president? Really?

Dreher is a full-on sufferer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Its evident when he takes posts that have nothing to do with Iraq or Bush and goes in that direction anyway. Its evident when he gets foaming at the mouth angry because of a stray comment by a politician's wife. The simple fact is that Dreher has shown far more empathy and charity towards that murderer Cho than he has to Laura Bush. Sickening.