Did you happen to see the dignity with which the Italian people honored their 19 soldiers who were killed in an attack in Iraq? All 19 coffins were draped in the Italian flag, Italy's president was present for a moving ceremony, and there was a day of national mourning.
Contrast this show of dignity to our White House's cold avoidance of any public mourning of the more than 400 coffins that have come back to our country from George W's war in Iraq. Bush handlers say they don't want him seen with the coffins of our dead soldiers, for that would be "off message."
- Jim Hightower
It's easy to minimize the death of American soldiers when it is someone else's children or granchildren doing the dying. The Bush Administration has done an excellent job of making it clear that it's not about the losses, it about the succeses, such as they can be spun. Yes, there is a cost to be paid, and the Bush Administration has no problem in paying it- because, after all, it's not the children of wealth and privilege doing the fighting and dying.
[T]he Bushites are pushing a cheery message, proclaiming that things are going according to plan in Iraq, with great progress being made in our glorious occupation.
Not only do the Bushites stay on message, but their right-wing media apologists also try to put a smiley face on our losses there, as do George's congressional parrots. For example, one of the blathering GOP congress critters, George Nethercutt of Spokane, recently went to Iraq on the taxpayer's dime for four days. He then returned and dutifully offered this brilliant insight: "The story of what we've done in Iraq is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."
One wonders: "How would Nethercutt feel if one of those soldiers was his child or grandchild? And, if one of Bush's daughters was a soldier coming home in a coffin - would he go "off-message" to greet it? And if 400 children of his top campaign contributors had died over there, would we still be in Iraq? Indeed, if the children of the privileged had to go to war, would Bush, the congress, the war contractors, the media barons, and the right-wing talk-showers have been so gung-ho to put our soldiers there in the first place?
If the child of wealth and privilege were among those coming home in body bags, would this war be conducted differently? Would it have more meaning for those making the decisions? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It would certainly seem a good deal more equitable, though. Not that anyone wishes an untimely and violent death on anyone, but that burden should not be dependent on one's place on the economic status scale. Unless, of course, it's someone else's child.
If there must be pain, that pain must be shared. Otherwise, we run the risk of having a situation similar to what we find ourselves in now: the children of wealth and privilege are safe and comfortable in their college dorms, while the children of the middle and lower classes are the ones in the Humvess, wondering if it is time for their ticket to be punched.
Americans deserve better.
