Thanks to Jorge at Media in Trouble, I can update my post on the Friday night events at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. What to call those "events" is part of the problem. Cybercast News Service casts them as "anti-war protests target[ing] the wounded." The sponsor, CodePink, calls them "peaceful vigils."
Margaret Talev of the McClatchy Newspapers' Washington Bureau tries to sort through the story to get a little closer to the truth -- and is the only person in the traditional media to cover this. She notes both sides involve Iraq War veterans and family members, and loads of partisanship. Vigil spokeswoman/co-organizer Medea Benjamin is the activist who infiltrated the Republican National Convention last year and interrupted Vice President Cheney's speech. CNS is part of the "Media Research Center, a watchdog group that seeks to expose liberal media bias," though she doesn't name its head, conservative writer Brent Bozell.
Marc Morano, who wrote the CNS story, also worked (as a freelancer) for Rush Limbaugh for a few years, but he insists he has no "agenda" except "that a lot of veterans were outraged. These soldiers have to see these people every Friday night, and that's what got these people upset." And despite CNS' inflammatory headline, he says:
I don't think this is a redo of Vietnam in the sense that they're calling [the soldiers] baby killers.... I don't allege that at all. It's almost like they're saying, "The soldiers are suckers, you were maimed for a lie, you were duped."
A statement from CodePink quotes co-organizer Gael Murphy:
Since we started these vigils, we feel we have helped put the spotlight on the needs of the soldiers and helped achieve positive results, such as greater VA funding and a rollback of attempts to make soldiers pay for their own meals, phone calls, daily hospitalization fees and increased co-payments.
That's a mighty big claim, since the vigils haven't been covered by the media, and the issues haven't been ignored entirely. Salon broke the meal-payments story when that policy was instituted in January, and followed up on its demise. The online magazine has also written about the late-night arrival of the wounded. At least one senator (and undoubtedly others) have sponsored legislation on increased funding for veterans' concerns. And the Pennsylvania ACLU is suing the Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of the Coalition of Veterans Advocates, which seeks documentation of the DVA's reasons for closing veterans' hospitals. (Disclosure: I'm on the board of the Greater Pittsburgh ACLU chapter, part of the Pennsylvania affiliate.) Sure, there are other examples, and yes, there's not enough of the thorough mainstream coverage these problems deserve. The tussle over the impact and character of the vigils is but another distraction.
And the hot-button question remains unanswered, except in a she said/he said cop-out. What about those flag-draped coffins and insensitive signs? CodePink, in a response to Jorge, said, "In recent weeks, the vigil has attracted some people who have tried to change the tone and message of the vigil, including yelling and holding up inappropriate signs. The organizers have asked the newcomers to be respectful and wonder if they might indeed be infiltrators whose aim is to disrupt the vigil." The CNS story "is part of a strategy by Bush's supporters to hurt war protesters' credibility in the wake of [Cindy] Sheehan's public relations success and sinking support for the war," is what the McClatchy News story reports. The "he said" part: "But counterprotesters said Friday the anti-war side has sanitized its vigil since the controversy broke. Before, said Albion Wilde, a Baltimore-area counterprotester who has been coming for months, 'They had nasty signs: "Maimed for a lie," "Died for Halliburton".'"
The truth is -- what? I'm willing to believe the sincerity of CodePink and the possibility of a "smear campaign," though more probable is that a few anti-war sympathizers went too far and CNS grabbed at that angle. But I still argue (warning: personal opinion injected) that any sort of protest/vigil/demonstration on hospital grounds is inappropriate, regardless of politics. A place where people are already in pain should be a sanctuary. Period.
PS: Also, any political statement can be easily misconstrued, even if the message is only "we care," as a post last month demonstrates. Pa's lieutenant governor -- primarily a ceremonial office -- represents the state at a lot of ceremonies, especially funerals. She goes to lots of funerals, and always to funerals of local fallen soldiers. She was pilloried around the country for allegedly making an anti-war statement at one of these funerals. That she would say such a thing is unlikely; that she would speak clumsily is very likely. Defying partisan calls for her immediate resignation, Pa's governor backed her up and confirmed her place on the gubernatorial ticket next year. The political molehill will probably keep her in office, even though there are better reasons to ease her into a dignified retirement.