Read these two stories in the NYTimes. The first, in the Bush era, keeps making its political points, that:
- War is pointless
- Blacks are more likely to join than Whites
- Shows families that are against the war, and think their childrens' service a waste
- Military is seen as a way to make some money
In other words, the 2,000 milestone deaths are used to push the Anti-Bush narrative. Several times, Bush is personally mentioned, as though he was the sole reason for the war.
And the racial flames are fanned in this story:
Sept. 5, Specialist Williams, a 20-year-old medic, was killed by a roadside bomb in Tal Afar, Iraq. Mrs. Williams-Smith, 42, is silent no more. Though her oldest living son is in the Navy, and her youngest son wants to join the Marines, she openly rages against the war and President Bush.
"It's time to bring these boys home," said Mrs. Williams-Smith, of Mansfield, Tex. "My feelings for Bush are harsh. He should have taken care of the needs of his own people before going across the ocean to take care of someone else's."
The anger Mrs. Williams-Smith, who is black, feels toward the war is shared by many other African-Americans, according to polls, military officials and experts.
Compare the tone of the NYTimes as the Afghanistan war hits the same milestone - still anti-war, but only 1 mention of the current president. Most of the article is focused on using the term NATO, rather than American, for the troops. They are off-loading responsibility for the death to the multinational force.
No references to the troops' families blaming the president personally, as in the first article.
It's amazing - I wonder what the difference could be.
It's almost like it's no longer patriotic to eviscerate the Commander-in-Chief in public anymore.