"So Who Are We Honoring Here?"

by hilzoy

Cindy Sheehan, whose son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, is camping out in front of Bush's ranch in Crawford, hoping to meet with him. I am, in general, not a big fan of camping out in front of people's homes wanting to meet with them, though as I said before in another context, I tend to cut people a lot of slack when they are grieving. On the other hand, I can't see why Bush doesn't just do the decent thing and talk to her. Not everything has to be politics, and it would cost him so little to display some humanity.

What really struck me, in reading the coverage of this, was Sheehan's account of her previous meeting with President Bush. From the NYT:

"Mr. Bush did not know her son's name when she and her family met with him in June 2004 at Fort Lewis. Mr. Bush, she said, acted as if he were at a party and behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as "Mom" throughout the meeting.

By Ms. Sheehan's account, Mr. Bush said to her that he could not imagine losing a loved one like an aunt or uncle or cousin. Ms. Sheehan said she broke in and told Mr. Bush that Casey was her son, and that she thought he could imagine what it would be like since he has two daughters and that he should think about what it would be like sending them off to war.

"I said, 'Trust me, you don't want to go there'," Ms. Sheehan said, recounting her exchange with the president. "He said, 'You're right, I don't.' I said, 'Well, thanks for putting me there.' " "

And from CNN:

"SHEEHAN: It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, "So who are we honoring here?" He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him "him" or "he." He called him "your loved one."

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody..."

He didn't bother to learn her son's name before he came in to meet with her? He referred to a woman he'd never met before, and who was grieving the loss of her son, as 'Mom'? "So who are we honoring here?" -- excuse me?

It's not that this side of Bush's character is a surprise. Who can forget his making fun of the pleas of a woman who was about to die by lethal injection?

"He is also, apparently, the kind of guy who thinks that a condemned woman begging for her life is knee-slappingly hilarious. Carlson recounts asking Bush about his handling of the Karla Faye Tucker episode last year. Tucker, you may recall, was the rehabilitated axe murderess whose faith-based request for clemency Bush chose not to grant despite pleas from Pat Robertson (which paradoxically made him more eager to execute her--the better to distance himself from the religious right). Here's Carlson's recounting of the way Bush mimicked Tucker's eleventh-hour appearance on Larry King Live: "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me." "

Not to mention that speech in which he joked about the missing weapons of mass destruction:

"At a black-tie dinner for journalists, Mr Bush narrated a slide show poking fun at himself and other members of his administration. One pictured Mr Bush looking under a piece of furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere." After another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr Bush said: "No, no weapons over there," he said. And as a third picture, this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the president was heard to say: "Maybe under here?" "

But not bothering to learn the name of a soldier killed in a war he started, when he is about to meet with his mother? Sheesh.

Comments

[Nell]

I can't see why Bush doesn't just do the decent thing and talk to her. Not everything has to be politics

Hm. Well, in this case I'd say everything does, because it's politics that has Cindy Sheehan camped on the road. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Tad Brennan]

hilzoy--

on "Thanks, Don" you wrote:

"Some of you may have noticed that I loathe Donald Rumsfeld. I don't particularly loathe Bush -- I think he's a disaster as a President, but I can't seem to raise any real emotion towards him personally"

Maybe now that you're getting to know him a little better.

[Ugh]

That sounds very odd, especially for politicians which, when met in person (not recommended), are supposed to exude charisma and empathy. Perhaps he just stopped trying after the election.

[hilzoy]

Tad: no, I've known this for ages, and I still don't have much of an emotional reaction to Bush, as distinct from, say, the intellectual recognition that he's a walking catastrophe. In fact, it has decreased over time: back in 1999 or 2000, when I first started paying attention to him, I did have a visceral response, which was based, I think, on the fact that, being a privileged WASP-y person who grew up with privileged WASP-y people, the version of privileged WASPiness that I always loathed, as far back as I can remember, was the one that involved never noticing how much effort on the part of other people was required in order for them to coast through their lives smashing things up; that took that effort absolutely for granted, as an entitlement. I spent a decent chunk of my childhood and adolescence trying to figure out how never ever to become such a person. And there was George W. Bush, the very embodiment of it.

Since then, though, that has faded. I don't really know why -- as I said, it has nothing to do with my judgment on his actual performance, which has been a lot worse than I expected -- but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that I just don't expect more of him any more.

[hilzoy]

And, to be clear: when I say "his actual performance, which has been a lot worse than I expected", I don't mean that I expected him to do a good, or even a passable, job when he was first elected. I just didn't imagine the incredible extent of his disastrousness.

[Edward]

clueless or heartless?

[hilzoy]

Edward: I think both.

[Tacitus]

There's no question in my mind that the President rubbed Sheehan the wrong way. And I find it perfectly plausible that his schedulers sent him into his meeting with her woefully underprepared.

I also know that plenty of other grieving military families have met with him and reported that they were touched by his compassion. (And not just military families -- enterprising readers can search Salon for the account of the President's ad hoc meeting with recovering addicts on the 2000 campaign trail.)

So please, while Sheehan doubtless buttresses the prejudices of most here, let's not pretend her account is an especial insight into the President's character -- or lack thereof. We just don't know that, and we cannot.

[Katherine]

I actually agree with Tac.

[Barry Freed]

Bush has always acted like an overgrown immature adolescent frat boy. That's being fairly charitable. I think the real reason may lie in Bush having a form of sociopathic disorder, specifically Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

[Ugh]

Someone over at kos is reporting that Sheehan and her companions will be arrested on Thursday as "a threat to national security."

[ral]

We each have our own opinions about President Bush's character, informed in my case only by what I have read and viewed, since I have never met him personally.

One incident that sticks in my mind is his encounter with Bill Hangley, Jr., reported in Salon:

Hangley: Mr. President, I hope you only serve one term. I'm very disappointed in your work so far.

President Bush: Who cares what you think?

[Edward]

OK, so I generally agree with Tacitus too, Katherine, but this last bit is confusing:

So please, while Sheehan doubtless buttresses the prejudices of most here, let's not pretend her account is an especial insight into the President's character -- or lack thereof. We just don't know that, and we cannot.

We can't?

Actually, we can't what?...ever know what kind of man he truly is?

If not, then why should we believe anyone who tells us he's decent?

[Tacitus]

I've met him in passing. Seemed nice enough, but everyone does in passing.

Like I said, people will pick and choose whatever supports their preconceptions with this stuff. Remember the video of Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral? The (unlike the Sheehan/Bush encounter) verifiable act of a man with character problems; but it doesn't detract from Clinton's also-verifiable sincere interest in humanitarian work. File the Sheehan story on Bush in the same drawer as this, and remember that everyone strikes people differently at different times.

Again, this tells you nothing especial.

[Edward]

well, it looks rather damning, but having been to more funerals than I care to recount, I know you experience a roller coaster of emotions and the smallest thing can set you off.

Again, one person's POV (like a camera) can hardly provide a "true" account of what happened, so I tend to agree that Sheehan's seeing Bush through hate-colored glasses and would likely have picked up on anything he did to hate him more.

The Karla Faye Tucker story, on the other hand, if true, is inexcusable in any context.

[Katherine]

I think I know stuff about Bush, and his carelessness, thoughtlessness and ability to believe exactly what he wants to believe drive me fairly insane. But that's based on watching him in office for 4+ years, through two campaigns, and knowing a bit about his record in Texas. An isolated anecdote like this, though--I've read others that go the other way. The one they have in common seems to be a certain familiarity that some people find comforting & leads them to hit it off, and drives other people absolutely crazy. Doubtless your opinion of him going into it shapes that; I assume he also just has good and bad days, thoughful and thoughtless days, and is better and worse prepared. These sorts of one-on-one personal encounters are too easy to cherry pick, and not what we hire a President for anyway.

[bernard Yomtov]

I find it perfectly plausible that his schedulers sent him into his meeting with her woefully underprepared.

They didn't tell him not to call her "Mom?", or that her son was killed? Hard to believe. Is it all because he "rubbed Sheehan the wrong way?" Or is it just possible that he in fact behaved rudely?

Is nothing Bush's fault?

[Tacitus]

If accurate, the Tucker story is indeed detestable.

[Tacitus]

Is nothing Bush's fault?

Here comes the science.

[Tad Brennan]

It's worth remembering the Bob Jones episode.

Bush was down in the 2000 primaries, and McCain was catching up. So Rove started smears about McCain's mental stability and family, and sent Bush to that bastion of racism and anti-catholicism, Bob Jones U.

When people tried to hold Bush accountable for his cozying up to bigots, he told them that they could not judge what was in his heart.

That's right. His actions may be the actions of a cynical, opportunistic bigot, but we should not infer anything about his character.

On the other hand, he has been sold to us, during both elections, as a man with a pure heart, honest, pious, decent, and so on. (They pretty much had to sell him on his character, since he had no concrete achievements to his name.)

So the Bob Jones rule is pretty straightforward: if it might reflect badly on Bush, then you can't judge his heart. But if it will help him win the election, then, by god, look what a good heart the man has.

Look--I am inclined to agree with Tacitus, Edward, Katherine, and others that we cannot infer very much from a single incident.

I am *especially* inclined to agree with Katherine that we should not hire Presidents because they are or are not warm and fuzzy. We need to get back to a government of laws, not a cult of personalities.

But this is not a single isolated incident. This is the man who was morally shallow about sending soldiers into battle ("oh, there won't be any casualties!"), morally shallow about executing Tucker, and morally shallow in joking about the missing WMD's.

So when Tacitus suggests that we should obey the Bob Jones rule--don't judge what is in Bush's heart--I have little patience with the suggestion.

[lily]

In a little while I'm going to see if Ms. Sheehan has a website. I'd like to make a donation toward her traveling expenses. I agree that it is hard (impossible?) to judge character from a distance; that's why I am an issue-oriented voter. However, the whole character thing is a theme that Republicans have been promoting for well over a decade now, primarily I think to attack politians who were responisble for workable, functional, public-spirited policies and to promote politicians who were not. I would prefer that people grew to despise Bush for his policies, but I can still appreciate the irony if perception of character is what finally gets him. And I do think his popularity will continue to drop.

[cleek]

In a little while I'm going to see if Ms. Sheehan has a website. I'd like to make a donation toward her traveling expenses

she has a dKos diary. sorry, no link handy. but, she announced her trip to Crawford there last week and was asking for people to join her.

[Gromit]

Watch carefully. Clinton wipes the tear back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.

[Tacitus]

This is the man who was morally shallow about sending soldiers into battle....

And you base this upon....what? A policy disagreement?

As for Bob Jones, while I agree that it is a wretched place (according to its theology, I am hellbound on at least two counts I'm aware of), it is also a de rigeur stop for campaigning in South Carolina. That doesn't make it right by any stretch -- it should be shunned -- but interestingly enough, Tad's citing it rather effectively highlights the applicability of what he calls the "Bob Jones rule" in the President's case. His willingness to speak there didn't actually reveal much directly about his character. BJU's cardinal sins -- that it is racist and theologically intolerant -- are demonstrably not among the President's flaws. So, QED.

[ral]

I too agree with Katherine about the job functions of a President, yet Tad Brennan expresses much of my view on this topic.

I want to point out that President Bush repeatedly asks us to trust his judgments of other people's character: John Bolton is a "good man," so is Alberto Gonzales, and let's not forget his insight into the soul of Vladimir Putin.

There are plenty of policy and fact based reasons to disapprove of President Bush, and many here have written about them. I think his character, too, though, is a worthy topic of discussion, though much of the discussion will focus on personal opinions.

[Nell]

Lily, Cindy Sheehan was one of the founders of Military Families Speak Out, and I'm sure they would be able to funnel contributions to her or know how to do so. Best wishes to Cindy at Camp Casey.

[Edward]

I think his character, too, though, is a worthy topic of discussion,

Only because the President and his handlers insist it be one (good point Tad!).

[Macallan]

What Ms. Sheehan was reported thinking prior to meeting Bush and what she said immediately after the meeting:

link

[Nell]

Tac, "If accurate"???

Bush was on camera mocking Karla Faye Tucker. I'm pretty confident that someone here can help you with the level of documentation you seem to require.

[Tacitus]

Awesome catch, Mac.

"I now know [the President is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy [Sheehan] said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

...."That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

[rilkefan]

Not seeing the exculpatory nature of Mac's link. I could say of an earthquake, "It gave me the gift of spending a week home from work with my wife" without having happy earthquake fuzzies.

[M. Scott Eiland]

I wouldn't mind seeing Bob Jones U crossed off the stops for Republican presidential candidates--do you think that Democratic presidential candidates will cross the ceremonial--if metaphorical--fellation of Al Sharpton off the "must do" list any time soon? After all, Bob Jones University isn't responsible for stirring up any fatal riots, the last time I heard.

[Ugh]

happy earthquake fuzzies

Those were the days...

[cleek]

here's the rest of it. including what Drudge left out.

[Tacitus]

Less time at DU will do you well, Nell. The Karla Faye Tucker incident wasn't on camera at all: it was part of a 1999 Talk Magazine article by Tucker Carlson entitled "Devil May Care." Here is a scan of the relevant passage.

[Jeremy Osner]

it is also a de rigeur stop for campaigning in South Carolina.

Did Clinton speak at BJU? Did Gore? Did Kerry? Yet all of them campaigned in SC.

When a political party markets itself to the racist and theologically intolerant segment of the electotate it deserves mention. That the candidate himself does not exhibit these attributes does not excuse the political marketing.

[Tacitus]

Not seeing the exculpatory nature of Mac's link.

You have to take off the blinders.

[Macallan]

uhmm, cleek I linked to the original story, not Drudge.

[cleek]

any reason Tac,Mac and MSE often show up on threads at the same time ?

[Tacitus]

How did those candidates do in SC, Jeremy? Thanks for reinforcing my point in your last sentence.

[Edward]

that's some mighty fancy excerpting there Tacitus...when I read the whole article and those bits in context, I came away with the nearly total opposite sense of what she was saying:

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

Sounds to me like she was less than totally pleased with how he responded, but more than that, it reads like the newspaper wanted to soften what she really said...too many bits seems readable either direction...

[Tacitus]

Focus, cleek. Eyes on the prize.

[Tacitus]

Edward, reasonable people recognize that Ms Sheehan has radically hardened her public statements since. She's obviously not capable of this level of graciousness now.

[Dantheman]

"any reason Tac,Mac and MSE often show up on threads at the same time ?"

Holy Swiss Cheese! Someone must have used the Bat-signal feature of the VRWC decoder ring.

[Macallan]

Speaking of "mighty fancy excerpting" Edward,

But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

[rilkefan]

"You have to take off the blinders."

Du musst dein Leben aendern.

"How did those candidates do in SC, Jeremy? Thanks for reinforcing my point in your last sentence."

Wait, expediency now determines morality?

[Jeremy Osner]

Tacitus -- at the time of the Civil Rights era the Democratic party broke with its racist, theologically intolerant wing and lost major portions of the South. The Republican party came along and was happy to jump in bed with the worst of America. Glad you know you're cool with that.

[Edward]

you'll have to spell out your objection Mac.

mine was that she had, to her mind, reason to believe Bush was not sincere.

[Jeremy Osner]

And -- every time a Republican candidate speaks at BJU they are affirming their commitment to the worst element of America. It is an ongoing thing.

[rilkefan]

"Someone must have used the Bat-signal"

Anything that rustles up Mac's fine by me. Else all I do here is spat with felixrayman and try not to bait Gary Farber.

[Phil]

Edward, reasonable people recognize that Ms Sheehan has radically hardened her public statements since. She's obviously not capable of this level of graciousness now.

Another way of putting it would be, "Ms. Sheehan originally soft-pedalled her feelings in the interest of diplomacy and decorum, but feels now that she would like to further engage the President on the matter and wants some harder answers."

Both statements are equally true and equally speculative, and unless any of us has reached that level of Scientology where you can read minds or whatever, none of us has any way of knowing how she truly felt then or how she truly feels now.

I realize that puts a bit of a damper on Mac's "A-ha!" moment. So sorry.

[Edward]

Edward, reasonable people recognize that Ms Sheehan has radically hardened her public statements since. She's obviously not capable of this level of graciousness now.

My point was that I'm not convinced she was all that gracious then. Wish I had that reporters notes from the interview...the article reads to me like it had a gallon of Downy dumped on it.

[Tacitus]

The Dems broke with their theologically intolerant wing? Does no one else read Anne Lamott these days?

Glad you know you're cool with that.

Please, Jeremy. Try reading what you critique.

Wait, expediency now determines morality?

What thread is rilkefan on?

[cleek]

is it an unimaginable thing that a person would change their mind over time - especially about something as traumatic as losing a son ?

[felixrayman]

So let's see Bush, we are told, is of strong and decent character because he only panders to howling bigoted religionists, rather than being one himself. And, it is implied, the fact that this tactic is effective is proof of its rightness. In addition, we shouldn't pay attention to anecdotal evidence of Bush's flawed character, but instead to anecdotal evidence that he is a gracious person. Further, we can explain away the first type of anecdotal evidence by blaming Bush's appointees, as Dear Leader himself makes no mistakes.

Oh, and of course we have the obligatory selective quoting and misrepresentation that is directed almost automatically at anyone that criticizes Bush. Quite funny.

[Edward]

I'll be honest.

Cindy sounds to me like a person who chose a method of dealing with her loss that has become mixed up with the pleasure everyone derives from having people cheer you on.

I got that sense from her posts on Kos, and I get that sense from the stories about her protest.

In the end, as an American, she's free to express her sorrow in the means that suits her (and I totally support giving folks room to grieve in their own way).

However, I do see why it's easy for those she's trying to reach to dismiss her. I wish I had some good advice for her.

[Ugh]

is it an unimaginable thing that a person would change their mind over time - especially about something as traumatic as losing a son ?

I think Tac and Mac's point is that the previous article casts doubt on her current statements about what went on at the meeting, but that's just me mind reading.

[Tacitus]

She didn't change her mind about "losing a son"; she changed her mind about the President's demeanor in interacting with her. Of course she's within her rights to do so. As she's made herself a public figure in doing so, we're within our rights to regard her as a tragic and not terribly credible individual.

[Ugh]

Though it looks like I did a good job.

[Tacitus]

You did a perfect job.

....Bush, we are told, is of strong and decent character because he only panders....In addition, we shouldn't pay attention to anecdotal evidence of Bush's flawed character....

Felix joins the "I'm reading an imaginary thread" crowd.

[Edward]

it's only the character of those who attack the president that matters, ugh. ;-p

[Phil]

While I mostly agree with Edward -- and what little I've read from her on Daily Kos (which I don't generally read but has been linked from here) shows that she's also sadly fallen into some real conspiracy-theory stuff -- I can't help but feel that . . . some peoples' . . . estimates of her credibility vary directly with how much she supports the President.

[cleek]

She didn't change her mind about "losing a son";

yes, my sentence was sloppy. but you know very well that's not what i meant.

so, we're within our rights to regard her as a tragic and not terribly credible individual

who are you to judge if a person is "credible" or not about their own feelings - especially feelings on a matter such as this ?

[felixrayman]

Felix joins the "I'm reading an imaginary thread" crowd.

Tacitus joins the "I won't stand by anything I implied" crowd.

[Tacitus]

Yes, cleek, your sentence was sloppy. But it befits your argument: no one is questioning that Sheehan feels what she feels. It is the credibility we ascribe to those feelings as objective descriptors of anything but those feelings that is in question.

Let the imagination run free, Felix. Not that you need my encouragement.

[felixrayman]

Continue to make statements with silly implications and then back away from defending them, Tacitus. Not that you need my encouragement.

[Tacitus]

"Hate....HATE...."

[Francis]

Confirmation Bias.

that is all.

[the thread, however, is characterized by a remarkable amount of snark.]

[Tacitus]

Yep.

[Dantheman]

Congrats, Felix. Who knew you would be the winner of the "Reduce Tac to Incoherence" contest?

[lily]

Nell, thanks for the link to Military Families Speak Out. I see we are now at the phase of the discussion when people begin to challenge Ms. Sheenan's sincerity or motivation, albeit by hints. Check out the letters section of the MFSO website. There are enough testimonials there to break your heart.

[Nell]

Tacitus: Have not ever have been to the Democratic Underground site, as it happens. I'm wrong about Bush mocking Karla Faye Tucker on camera, and appreciate the link to Tucker Carlson's recounting of the incident.

Given that it's not on film, I gather that literally nothing would convince you of the truth of the account.

Confirmation bias, indeed. We're all just reading our prejudices into things when we see a thin-skinned, small-minded, short-tempered, unempathetic dimwit up there as the President of the freaking United States.

[CMatt]

Tacitus: And I find it perfectly plausible that his schedulers sent him into his meeting with her woefully underprepared.

I find this plausible too, though perhaps not for quite the same reasons. Do tell.

[JP]

Never forget the first rule of Rove-ism: Attack your political enemy where he (or she) seems unassailable. Here we go again.

[Nell]

Just to correct slightly what I posted to Lily above, Cindy Sheehan is a cofounder (in January 2005) of Gold Star Families for Peace, which is a member organization of Military Families Speak Out. MFSO was founded in late 2002.

Cindy Sheehan has been doing political work against the war full time since three months after her son was killed in Iraq (April 2004). Here's a profile of her and her family from this past March.

[bob mcmanus]

I should be erudite and profound here, citing older wisdoms, but I dislike these evidentiary and anecdotal methods of judging character. Everybody makes mistakes, has bad days, intermittent flaws and weaknesses. I am not the center of the scales.

On the other hand, part of attaining maturity and character yourself is being able to judge people, to gain impressions as quickly as necessary based on intuition. The times I have been fooled I have been fooling myself. We can watch these people on TV, with or without sound, and most of us can decide fairly well.

Nothing Clinton did surprised me. If I had kids, I would hand them to DeLay in a second.
He might Christianize them, but he would protect and take care of them with all he had. Same with Cheney. OTOH, look at Bush's daughters.

I loathe Bush. He has no redeeming features.

[bob mcmanus]

Truman

"One of the most moving pieces in the library was also one of the smallest. It was a Purple Heart awarded to a serviceman who had been killed in Korea. The soldier's parents blamed Truman for their son's death; they sent him back the medal with a note, saying in effect: he can have no use for this medal because he is dead due to your policies, so we are sending it back to you. The medal, and the note, were discovered in Truman's desk at the library after he died. Apparently he had kept it close to him all those years as a reminder of the human cost of the decisions he had made."
....
As far as Bush on occasion pretending compassion toward families, I would guess the families were Bush supporters, and the important thought process along the lines of:"Even tho they lost their children in my war, they still love ME. Isn't it great, they still love ME ME ME." Would bring any narcissist to tears.

hilzoy, if you have lowered your expectations for Bush-as-President, you should still keep them for Bush-as-human-being. And he is quite possibly the worst I have ever seen. He would be Saddam given the opportunity and circumstances.

[cleek]

He has no redeeming features

he does bring out the worst in his supporters. in a way, it's nice to be able to see just how shallow many of their convictions w.r.t. small govt, balanced budgets, no defecits, no nation building, no corruption, etc. are.

[Barry Freed]

Cindy Sheehan has always been consistent since her son's death:

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002301.html

[Randy Paul]

Well, the president in announcing the start of the war pumped his fist, smiled and said "feels good" while sending people off to die. As Mark Kleiman noted,

Will nothing teach this moral monster the meaning of any suffering not his own?

Mark Kleiman is not quite the DU, Tacitus. Not even by your way of moving the goalposts.

[CaseyL]

Bush isn't a puzzle so much himself; his lack of basic humanity is evident to anyone knowing his biography.

What does puzzle me is the worshipfulness he inspires in his followers. What do they see when they look at him? Their own flaws, redeemed by power? A fellow epsilon who, but for the accident of birth to wealth and connection, would likely have died in some alcohol-related incident before age 21?

The adulation floors me.

[Macallan]

I realize that puts a bit of a damper on Mac's "A-ha!" moment.

If you noticed, I posted the link without comment one way or the other. Her stated feelings both prior to and after the meeting are valuable to understanding where she is today. Her feelings about Bush today or then are I imagine entirely real to her, but I would also imagine them to be a mere sideshow to what really colors her world – the unbearable loss of her son. Unlike Hilzoy I don't think Ms. Sheehan's pain and suffering makes a good lens to view anything, other than her hurt and loss. My heart goes out to her and will admit to a certain distain toward those who will use her. Sorry to put a bit of a damper on your "Mac sucks" moment.

[Tacitus]

....I gather that literally nothing would convince you of the truth of the account.

What is it with ObWi lefties and lack of reading comprehension these days? And how is it that one of them is holding forth Tucker Carlson(!) as a paragon of objective reportage?

Randy, you're right Kleiman isn't DU; but it doesn't follow from this that he's not displayed a remarkable capacity for stupidity where Republicans are concerned. Try again, please.

[felixrayman]

What is it with ObWi lefties and lack of reading comprehension these days?

Still hanging on to that "Tacitus.org is a left-wing site" bit, I see.

[postit]

'Off the deep end'

At Redstate no less, oh the irony.

Priceless!

[rilkefan]

What thread is rilkefan on?

Felix joins the "I'm reading an imaginary thread" crowd.

That would be the imaginary thread where one could engage Tac confident of receiving a sometimes compelling, sometimes surprising, almost always reasoned, always engaged reply, as in the old days before the masque. Back to reading this thread where he's just going through the motions - or rather not, given that it's likely to stay a squabble now.

[Katherine]

The Karla Faye Tucker thing always paled in comparison to the overall state of the Texas indigent defense & death penalty system to me, but I generally operate on the assumptions that journalists, even lousy journalists, don't just make things up, and if they do the person they're quoting complains about it. And what possible evidence for it is there other than Carlson's account? Other than a video that does not exist, or a signed confession from Bush, I mean. As for Kleiman, if making one overheated post justifies ignoring everything else someone writes, all weblogs should just disappear tomorrow.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"if making one overheated post justifies ignoring everything else someone writes, all weblogs should just disappear tomorrow."

Now that is pure truth!

[Phil]

OK, Mac. I was extrapolating from past experience, but I'll simply take you at your word.

[Randy Paul]

Ahh, Tacitus, attacking the messenger as usual when you really have no basis to attack the substance. Did Bush say “Feels good!” and pump his fist when he sending people off to war? Yes.

Your droll tone dripping with condescension notwithstanding, nothing you wrote changes the fact that the president thinks it “feels good” when he’s sending people off to kill and be killed – as long as they’re not his people.

Perhaps you should try again.

[Randy Paul]

Randy, you're right Kleiman isn't DU; but it doesn't follow from this that he's not displayed a remarkable capacity for stupidity where Republicans are concerned.

Hardly rising to the level of your ad hominem and McCarthyite guilt by association.

Sometimes you're just the very definition of a stone-throwing glass-house dweller.

[mim]

Remember how he protested last year that the presidency is hard work, because he had to comfort the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq? I suppose he really meant it.

[Anarch]

In case anyone's interested in the truth, now that the smear campaign has slimed its way elsewhere:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009