Sunday, August 21, 2005

"I'm So Sorry"

This is a reprint of an article in the Aug.22, 2005 issue of Newsweek. It is written by two of the magazine's head writers and is not taken from a conservative website or blog. I'm posting it because it is appropriate reading for anyone interested in the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon or for anyone simply curious about our President.

"I'm So Sorry"

In emotional private meetings with the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush offers solace—and seeks some of his own.


By Holly Bailey and Evan Thomas
Newsweek

Aug. 22, 2005 issue - The grieving room was arranged like a doctor's office. The families and loved ones of 33 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan were summoned to a large waiting area at Fort Bragg, N.C. For three hours, they were rotated through five private rooms, where they met with President George W. Bush, accompanied by two Secret Service men and a photographer. Because the walls were thin, the families awaiting their turn could hear the crying inside.

President Bush was wearing "a huge smile," but his eyes were red and he looked drained by the time he got to the last widow, Crystal Owen, a third-grade schoolteacher who had lost her husband in Iraq. "Tell me about Mike," he said immediately. "I don't want my husband's death to be in vain," she told him. The president apologized repeatedly for her husband's death. When Owen began to cry, Bush grabbed her hands. "Don't worry, don't worry," he said, though his choking voice suggested that he had worries of his own. The president and the widow hugged. "It felt like he could have been my dad," Owen recalled to NEWSWEEK. "It was like we were old friends. It almost makes me sad. In a way, I wish he weren't the president, just so I could talk to him all the time."

Bush likes to play the resolute War Leader, and he has never been known for admitting mistakes or regret. But that does not mean that he is free of doubt. For the past three years, Bush has been living in two worlds—unwavering and confident in public, but sometimes stricken in private. Bush's meetings with widows like Crystal Owen offer a rare look inside that inner, private world.

Last week, at his ranch in Texas, he took his usual line on Iraq, telling reporters that the United States would not pull out its troops until Iraq was able to defend itself. While he said he "sympathized" with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, he refused to visit her peace vigil, set up in a tent in a drainage ditch outside the ranch, and sent two of his aides to talk to her instead.

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, though there have been hints. An hour after he met with the families at Fort Bragg in June, he gave a hard-line speech on national TV. When he mentioned the sacrifice of military families, his lips visibly quivered.

All war presidents find ways to deal with the strain of sending soldiers off to die. During the Vietnam War, LBJ used to pray after midnight with Roman Catholic monks. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, prayed with the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church on the eve of the first gulf war. For George W. Bush, these private audiences with the families of dead soldiers and Marines seem to be an outlet of sorts. (They are perhaps harder for Laura, who sometimes accompanies Bush and looks devastated afterward.) Family members interviewed by NEWSWEEK say they have been taken aback by the president's emotionalism and his sincerity. More complicated is the question of whether Bush's suffering is essentially sympathetic, or whether he is agonizing over the war that he chose to start.

Bush routinely asks to see the families of the fallen when he visits military bases, which he does about 10 times a year. It does not appear that the White House or the military makes any effort to screen out dissenters or embittered families, though some families decline the invitation to meet with Bush. Most families encourage the president to stay the course in Iraq. "To oppose something my husband lost his life for would be a betrayal," says Inge Colton, whose husband, Shane, died in April 2004 when his Apache helicopter was shot down over Baghdad. Bush does, however, hear plenty of complaints. He has been asked about missing medals on the returned uniform of a loved one, about financial assistance for a child going to college and about how soldiers really died when the Pentagon claimed the details were classified.

At her meeting with the president at Fort Hood, Texas, last spring, Colton says she lit into Bush for "stingy" military benefits. Her complaints caught Bush "a little off guard," she recalls. "He tried to argue with me a little bit, but he promised he would have someone look into it." The next day she got a call from White House chief of staff Andrew Card, who said the White House would follow up. "My main goal was to have him look at my son, look him in the eyes and apologize," says Colton. "I wanted him to know, to really understand who he has hurt." She says Bush was "attentive, though not in a fake way," and sometimes at a loss for words. "He didn't try to overcompensate," she says.

The most telling—and moving—picture of Bush grieving with the families of the dead was provided by Rachel Ascione, who met with him last summer. Her older brother, Ron Payne, was a Marine who had been killed in Afghanistan only a few weeks before Ascione was invited to meet with Bush at MacDill Air Force Base, near Tampa, Fla.

Ascione wasn't sure she could restrain herself with the president. She was feeling "raw." "I wanted him to look me in the eye and tell me why my brother was never coming back, and I wanted him to know it was his fault that my heart was broken," she recalls. The president was coming to Florida, a key swing state, in the middle of his re-election campaign. Ascione was worried that her family would be "exploited" by a "phony effort to make good with people in order to get votes."

Ascione and her family were gathered with 18 other families in a large room on the air base. The president entered with some Secret Service agents, a military entourage and a White House photographer. "I'm here for you, and I will take as much time as you need," Bush said. He began moving from family to family. Ascione watched as mothers confronted him: "How could you let this happen? Why is my son gone?" one asked. Ascione couldn't hear his answer, but soon "she began to sob, and he began crying, too. And then he just hugged her tight, and they cried together for what seemed like forever."

Ascione's family was one of the last Bush approached. Ascione still planned to confront him, but Bush disarmed her in an almost uncanny way. Ascione is just over five feet; her late brother was 6 feet 7. "My whole life, he used to put his hand on the top of my head and just hold it there, and it drove me crazy," she says. When Bush saw that she was crying, he leaned over and put his hand on the top of her head and drew her to him. "It was just like my brother used to do," she says, beginning to cry at the memory.

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, Ascione 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. He paused, tried to regain his composure and looked around the room. "I am sorry, I'm so sorry," he said.

10 Comments:

At 4:34 PM, Blogger brian said...

this is from august 22, 2005 or 2004?

 
At 8:39 PM, Blogger Matt N. said...

2005.

does it matter?

 
At 10:17 AM, Blogger brian said...

it's just interesting in that it would seem fairly reactionary in light of the protests outside his ranch. i, even as a bush hater, would probably concede that the man is more sympathetic than his public image lets on. But still, Bush and his party are very conscious of his public image. One of my biggest problems with the war has been the attitude, ignorance, and arrogance with which it was approached... and continues to be so today.

 
At 12:59 PM, Blogger Matt N. said...

Him meeting with the families is not reactionary to the protests. (although the publication of the article might be; but that was Newsweek's decision.) Bush has been meeting with them since the war in Afghanistan. "Privately, Bush has met with about 900 family members of some 270 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan." And: "An hour after he met with the families at Fort Bragg in June..." And: "Bush routinely asks to see the families of the fallen when he visits military bases, which he does about 10 times a year." And: "At her meeting with the president at Fort Hood, Texas, last spring..."

I get the sense that the general american public thinks that Bush rarely if ever meets with the families, based simply on the fact that it's never reported. So when the first editorials about Cindy Sheehan came out, they didn't bother to mention that Bush had met with her -- and many other families -- already.

Not that this is the best example, but on my way to work the other day, the local alt-rock station was broadcasting its scheduled 2-minute news segment -- a special news guy does it -- and he said: "4 more soldiers were killed in Iraq today. That's 4 more families that President Bush won't meet with."

I haven't met anybody who doesn't have problems with how the war was and is being executed. I just don't like how the criticism gets so personal. It's counterproductive and it's not helping Congress, the White House, the Pentagon, or the military do its job. "Bush is aterrorist." "The protestors are traitors." "I hate Bush." "I hate democrats." Cmon!

 
At 12:26 PM, Blogger brian said...

I knew that Bush meets with families... he has even met with Sheehan in the past, though she said the meeting was unsatisfactory to her. I was referring to the newsweek article as being reactionary. I agree with the criticism of people making it as personal as they do, though the fault lies on both sides. Those who don't support the war or the president have been blasted in the past as being unpatriotic, unamerican, evil, terrorist supporters, etc. I don't think it's easy to be a liberal in a room of conservatives any more than it is easy to be a conservative in a room of liberals. It's a touchy subject nowadays because so many people have begun to swap sides or slide back towards the middle (which is in my opinion a good thing), but just like President Bush, we're all trying to deal with the mistakes of our past. America put Bush back into office. If 57% of the nation doesn't approve of the way he's handling it, a good number of those people have to partially blame themselves.

 
At 12:46 PM, Blogger Matt N. said...

"If 57% of the nation doesn't approve of the way he's handling it, a good number of those people have to partially blame themselves."

Not if you think, like I do, that Kerry would've handled Iraq even worse. (ex. letting the Jan election deadline slip).

 
At 12:19 AM, Blogger brian said...

You can "think" all you want about how Kerry would have handled things, but I don't think it's possible to have much of a true picture of what that would have been like. Neither president had a very clear picture of what their specific plan was. The one reason I think Kerry might have been more successful is that he would have had a much better chance at getting foreign nations envolved (or re-envolved) because he hadn't done everything he could to make them all hate us. As far as deadlines go, I think we have all seen over the past few weeks how arbitrary deadlines for elections, constitutions, or american pull-outs are.

 
At 2:35 PM, Blogger Matt N. said...

Well you said that whoever voted for Bush have themselves to blame for how he's handling the war. Since we don't know how well (or poorly) Kerry would've handled it, how can you say the voters are to blame in either case (ie, if Kerry had won and the war was going even worse now, would you blame yourself?).

The January election was a much bigger milestone than the recent constituion milestone. It clarified for everyone watching that Iraqis want a democracy (and the terrorists don't), which wasn't clear until then. Had Kerry (or Bush) let that Jan 30 deadline slip, the insurgency would've been empowered and things would've devolved very very quickly. Kerry wouldn't have had time to bring in other countries anyway, being only 2 weeks into his presidency. I doubt he would've gotten them in the long term either. Who were we hoping for? France? Russia? Germany? You gotta be kidding me.

 
At 10:43 AM, Blogger brian said...

you voted for bush, you got him, don't complain about the way he's handling the war. nuff said.

apparently the iraqis don't know what they want, based on their constitutional bickering, though "some form of federalism" seems to be what they've come up with. the truth is that the different religious and ethnic groups are what make up the different interest groups, each who want their own way and more than their share of oil profits more than they want a democracy.

 
At 10:24 PM, Blogger Matt N. said...

"you voted for bush, you got him, don't complain about the way he's handling the war. nuff said."

that makes no sense.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home