What We Don't See on TV

by emptypockets

President George W. Bush raised nearly half a million dollars for Representatives Jim Gerlach and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania last Wednesday at a $1000-per-ticket fund-raiser. Here is what he said.

A battlefront in the war on terror is, of course, Iraq. And people in our country are unsettled because of the war, and I understand that. I fully understand why people in America are disquieted about what they're seeing on their TV screens. There's a concern about whether or not we can win. There's no doubt in my mind we will win...

The enemy cannot defeat us on the battlefield, but what they can do is put horrible images on our TV screens.

It is not what we are seeing on TV screens that disquiets us.

Three years ago this month, we saw the President make a tailhook landing on an aircraft carrier before a sign that read, "Mission Accomplished." We did not see the nearly 2,500 US military coffins returned home since then. We did not see prisoners being tortured and killed at Abu Ghraib. And we did not see the methodical slaughter of 24 Iraqi civilians including a 3-year-old girl and a 76-year-old man shot in their homes, killings that Republican Representative John Kline called "not an accident... an atrocity." Worst of all, we have not seen the US command, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, held accountable. That disquiets us.

Last fall, Hurricane Katrina brought horrible images to our TV screens. We saw people behave like animals. We saw dead humans fill the streets. We saw desperation and poverty unfit for this country -- for any country. But what we didn't see was worse. We didn't see a President in command. We didn't see a President prepared to lead. We saw a President eating birthday cake with Senator John McCain as water flowed over the New Orleans levees, a President who went to bed ignoring Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco's request for federal assistance, and a President play guitar with country star Mark Wills in San Diego the day after the levees breached and as 36,000 evacuees in the New Orleans Superdome ran out of food and water. That was disquieting.

This month, we turned on our TVs and we saw the President of the United States in the Oval Office, the setting from which he addressed us after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Iraq invasion of March 19, 2003, and we saw him present a plan for a $2-billion wall to stop Mexicans entering the US illegally. But we didn't see the President two days later, at the funeral for Army 1st Sergeant Carlos Saenz and Army Staff Sergeant David Veverka, both killed in Iraq. Saenz was born in Mexico. Veverka was born in Pennsylvania. They both went to fight for the US, and were killed one day apart in Iraq, and they were laid in the ground the same Wednesday afternoon in Arlington National Cemetery. The President was not there. He was not there for the funerals of at least 15 other troops of Mexican descent killed in Iraq. He has not been there for the funerals of any other troops from Pennsylvania. He has not been there for any funerals, at all.

There are horrible images on our TV screens, but that is not what disquiets us.

It is the horrible scenes in real life. It is the needless death, brutal torture, and cold-blooded massacres in Iraq. It is the poverty, desperation, and suffering in New Orleans. It is the empty spaces and unending grieving that those deaths bring at home. That is what makes us unsettled. That is what makes us concerned.

And it is a President who goes on vacation but not into service. A President who goes to photo-ops and not to a city that is dying. A President who goes to half-million-dollar fundraisers but not to funerals.

That is what makes us mad as hell.

Read parts 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
The original BushWatch site (no relation).

Comments

[Sally]

It baffles many of us why this man is still in office. He has done more harm in Iraq than Saddam but most people hesitate to say so or to do anything about it. Why?

[sti1es]

At least 37,000 to 42,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed so far as the result of US military intervention in Iraq.

Why wasn't this little fact cited above? Why isn't this considered an atrocity too? Why is collateral damage acceptable but not cold blooded murder?

------
"...But a Marine spokesman brushed off any inquiries. 'To be honest,' Marine Captain Jeff Pool e-mailed McGirk, 'I cannot believe you're buying any of this. This falls into the same category of aqi (al-Qaeda in Iraq) propaganda.'

In late January, Time gave a copy of the videotape to Colonel Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. After reviewing it, he recommended a formal investigation. The ensuing probe, conducted by a colonel, concluded that Marines, not a bomb, killed the civilians but that the deaths were the result of 'collateral damage,' not deliberate homicide."
-----

Why is collateral damage on the 10,000s scale acceptable? Why is it that we are so concerned about the number of US troops but hardly ever cognizant of the number of Iraqi civilian deaths?

The question was asked above - Why do most people hesitate to say so or to do anything about it?

This is an excellent question.

[Mimikatz]

I think there are several reasons why people seem to have become apathetic. First, I think many are not really apathetic; many are angry but the overwhelming majority have no clear path to action. Many others find the struggle to maintain their standard of living and take care of their families takes all their energy.

Second, Kagro is right in contending that the endless and vitriolic pursuit of Bill Clinton in a way innoculated Bush because many people can't face going through that again. So they are angry, but waiting for the next election as a way to do something.

But the most serious problem is a growing sense that changing parties might not do much to change things, because of lack of leadershio from most of the top Dems. I also think people have less of a sense that they can change things compared to when I was young ('60s and 70s, when I was in my 20s and 30s).

This is a very volatile situation, anger but no way to act. It raises the opportunity for someone to come forward promising real change, but it also creates the opening for a "strongman" who combines Bush's love of power with a love of actually exercising power in ways other than information gathering, invading countries and paying off cronies.

OTOH, I am encouraged by the way many of today's 20-45 year olds seem to be picking up the baton and organizing people on and off line to bring pressure to bear on elected officials and media, running for office themsleves etc. That seems to be having an effect. And of course there is always the ability of people to take to the streets if things get bad enough.

But I'm with Steve Soto in thinking that we are never going to see real backbone from this bunch of risk-averse Democrats.

As a group, our senators are risk-averse. They are a fearful group and not willing to do a frontal assault on Bush unless the issue has broad public support, and has GOP support inside the chamber. They were bitch-slapped repeatedly since 2002 for being weak on national security, and are now focused on doing whatever is necessary to pick up more seats this November and aren’t willing to expose their flanks. This is not a mystery, and should not be a surprise to center-left bloggers. Almost all Democratic senators are playing the long game, and their political courage will be dictated by how many of them will be in the chamber in January 2007. If Chuck Schumer can play it safe and pick up enough seats this November to put Democrats back in charge, then you will see more courage and less risk-aversion. You will not see a Majority Leader Reid either. But if Schumer is able to only pull the Democrats close, say a 3-4 seat pickup, then the risk aversion will continue until 2008, when the early polling shows that the Democrats will easily retake the Senate.

There are far too few Russ Feingolds, Barbara Boxers, and Dick Durbins in the upper house and far too many Dianne Feinsteins, Joe Liebermans, Joe Bidens, and Jay Rockefellers. This is not news. Dreams of an aggressive Senate Democratic caucus die hard. But this has been a fact of life since 2002, and won’t change in the Senate for awhile. Waiting on "Profiles in Courage" moments from this group of Senate Democrats isn't in the cards, in part because of the risk-aversion mindset of the caucus, in part because we don't have the media infrastructure to maintain an offensive, and in part because these folks are playing a long game and hoping to back their way into the majority in January without exposing their flanks now to the already-successful attacks on national security. Again, there should be no surprises about this. This doesn't justify why the consultants and the Beltway Democrats behave this way, but until there are more safe Democrats in the Senate, and more splits inside the GOP caucus, looking for stands on principle from the caucus is unfortunately futile.

It doesn't mean we give up or curl up and die. It makes it all the more important to elect more Dems, especially ones that have shown more courage. But it also means that their is no savior a-coming, and we ourselves are going to have to do whatever we can to get this movement going and keep it moving until we see some real change.

[Mimikatz]

I should have read DHinMI's great diary at Kos before sounding off. There really is a lot going on and a new movement being built--it just hasn't connected yet with enough of the populace, but I do feel that it is from this new generation that the leadership for change will come and not the tired old folks now at the head of the Dem party.

[Sally]

This Republican-born abandoned that ship and jumped into the Democrats' lifeboat which is quickly sinking because it has no principled skipper or viable plan to oust the Queeqs and get on with what Americans used to be proud of. "Now" may even be too late for the new movement reportedly being built when we witness daily what we are rightly identified with--war-mongers, torturers, liars, murderers, a corrupt government with staggering financial and moral deficits and its totally ineffective opposition, a State-run traditional media, etc. Hope? I don't think so.

[SaltinWound]

Thanks, that was very powerful. I just got back from my 25th college reunion and found myself talking about this site a lot. I'm going to send this link to a few people. It actually might be a good introduction. Let's hook them with the beautiful plea now and then beat them to death with mind numbing detail later. They have no idea what they're in for.

[Brian Boru]

I think that when Bush says he understands something he's really saying I haven't got an effin clue.

[QuickSilver]

Thanks for a great diary. I read this (on Kos) just before meeting three young vets at a local campaign rally on Sunday. It certainly informed our exchange, though not in ways I could have predicted. FWIW.