Richard Cohen’s poor memory

March 20, 2007

The WaPo’s Richard Cohen addressed the controversy today over whether the lives of troops killed in Iraq have been “wasted,” a word used in this context by both John McCain (R) and Barack Obama (D). In analyzing recent events, however, Cohen’s memory of the last five weeks is faulty.

McCain used the “W” word when he announced on the David Letterman show that he would run for president. “Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be,” he said. “We’ve wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.” Precisely so.

The Democratic National Committee, ever poised for the cheap shot, accused McCain of “insulting our brave troops” and demanded an apology. Others joined in, and McCain obliged, saying he should have used the word “sacrificed.” Among the sacrifices being made, of course, is McCain’s integrity.

Earlier, Obama had also been caught uttering the truth. Soon after he announced for the presidency, the senator concluded a criticism of the war with the “W” word — “over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.” Obama quickly apologized, confessing to a “slip of the tongue.” He then reformulated his statement using the word “sacrifices.” For some reason, the Democratic National Committee held its tongue.

Cohen is leaving out a few key details to the story. OK, more than a few.

Specifically, Cohen seems to have completely forgotten about the Republicans’ attacks on Obama and the fact that the Republican National Committee held its tongue when it suited its purposes.

When Obama used what Cohen calls the “W” word, it was the Republican National Committee that led the attack, issuing a statement headlined “Obama Dismissed The Sacrifice Of America’s Military.”

By Cohen’s logic, doesn’t this mean that the RNC is “ever poised for the cheap shot”? For that matter, after McCain used identical language, the RNC said nothing. Following Cohen’s logic, doesn’t the RNC deserve a sarcastic comment about holding its tongue?

What’s more, Cohen seems to have missed the context. Obama made a comment, and the RNC pounced. McCain made the same comment, and the DNC pounced. Why, then, single out one side for denunciation? Why accuse one of a “cheap shot” without even telling the reader which party used it first?

It’s worth noting, as Greg Sargent does, that Cohen’s column is otherwise correct.

What makes Cohen’s omission all the more puzzling is that the rest of the column is pretty unobjectionable, even decent. It’s devoted to a discussion mostly of the various things Republicans are doing to use the troops as political props — things which, unlike the skirmish over the word “wasted,” have actual consequences for them, such as, you know, leaving them in a war.

It’s almost as if Cohen felt the need to toss in his whopping distortion of the “wasted” battle in order to achieve “balance” — as in, don’t worry, Democrats are bad, too! If so, Cohen’s quest for “balance” led him to do to a pretty glaring disservice to the truth.

That’s exactly the sense I got. Cohen wanted to trash the GOP’s exploitation of the troops, but he just couldn’t bring himself to go after one side without offering a misleading slap at the other.

Note to the media: sometimes, a pox on only one house will do just fine.

Nice to see that Cohen passed the IQ test low enough to be an American Likudnik with his buddies in the PNAC and the Confederate Treason Corporation formerly known as the Republican Party.

  • Frankly, I don’t see why ‘wasted’ isn’t considered to be an entirely appropriate term. Waste implies unnecessary loss, and it is impossible to argue that our soldiers HAD to invade Iraq. WWII- lives not ‘wasted’, because there were some actual ideals to uphold, like the future of the free world, Democracy and all that. So why are politicians so skittish about saying it? Damn it, if you believe that the Iraq war was unneccessary, then the lives of the soldiers are wasted when they die there.

  • Funny how one lopsided inaccuracy makes a column so Hacktacular, even when most of it is pretty good.

    Cohen also writes this crap:

    “…Now, though, the loss of life has become so much greater and the war has gone on longer than anyone expected…”

    Anyone? Really?

    More memory problems.

  • Castor, here’s Cohen’s line on the word “wasted”:

    It is painfully hard to say — and even harder to write — that the lives lost in Iraq were wasted. It sounds like a judgment on the dead when it is meant, of course, as an indictment of the living: America’s political leadership. But some sort of finger has to be pointed at the president and some sort of reminder offered that it is not just a policy that has failed but that people have been killed or wounded. This is the real cost of a war that need not have been fought.

    I agree with that, and it is well put.

  • I can understand how the word “wasted” may feel harsh to someone who has lost a loved one in Iraq, but that doesn’t make the word any less accurate or true. It’s painful, but these lives have been wasted. It’s tragic, but it’s true.

  • Barring a highly unlikely turn of events in Iraq that produce a thriving democracy and long-term stability, “waste” is the only word that fits. If it doesn’t, what other word is more accurate?

    The troops didn’t waste their own lives, however. They answered the call of duty, which is what being a soldier entails. Doing so is honorable. Soldiers are more at the mercy of politicians than the enemy. They can fight the enemy.

    Their lives are wasted when governments send them to fight unjust and unwise wars — which most wars have been.

  • “Wasted” sure does fit nicely with, though, and accurately describe the amount of valuable media real estate handed over to Cohen, Krauthammer, Will, Brooks, etc.

  • What everyone also seems to have missed is that, more than anything else, the DNC’s comments were meant to point out the glaring hypocracy of the RNC when it attacked Obama, more so than any petty attack on McCain for using the word “wasted” which is, after all, quite an accurate summation of what this administration has done to those poor soldiers’ lives and livelihoods.

    • Comments are closed.