What The Boos Were About
By Bill Scher on June 20, 2007 - 11:17am.
Sen. Hillary Clinton being booed during her remarks is likely to be the big story coming out of Day 3 of Take Back America. What the boos were actually about is likely to be misreported.
Byron York at the National Review writes that the boos began after Clinton said, “The American military has done its job.” A fellow attendee told me he heard Fox News’ Carl Cameron report that she was booed because she said she supports the troops (though I have not been able to confirm Cameron’s remarks.)
That's flat wrong. The Politics on the Hudson blog gets it right: “They jeered the Democratic presidential hopeful when she blamed the Iraqi government for the continued violence that has bogged down U.S. troops.”
See the video for yourself, go to 23 minutes and 38 seconds into her remarks.
Why get booed for that?
Because a lot of people are sick and tired of what’s become a stand-by cop-out bipartisan talking point: that the Iraqis are solely to blame for the chaos and de-stablization.
As if the Iraqis invaded and occupied themselves.
The debacle cannot be turned around until blame is properly placed. Not on all the Iraqi people. Not on the propped-up Iraqi “government.” Not on America. Not on Americans. Not on the troops.
But on the individuals in Washington who planned the occupation, voted for the occupation, fund the occupation, and continue the occupation.
The Washington media are likely to miss the true nature of the boos, because this grassroots frustration at the constant blame-shifting has rarely been given the media megaphone. That it’s the Iraqis fault has become accepted fact.
I highly doubt Sen. Clinton thought repeating conventional wisdom would have resulted in such a visceral reaction. But that’s what happens when mainstream media only reflects Beltway groupthink and ignores what’s simmering on the ground across America.
What is the actual news?
That the progressive grassroots, being serious about foreign policy and national security, wanting a fundamental change in our foreign policy away from blundering occupation and towards steely multilateral diplomacy, viscerally reacted to a blatant mischaracterization of what’s happening abroad.
Obviously, those Iraqi individuals and foreign fighters who commit unspeakable violence deserve blame for their horrific actions.
But politicians that don’t also recognize the occupation’s massive contribution to the region-wide de-stabilization, and in turn, articulate how ending the occupation can help begin to repair the damage, can expect more booing.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
