Do Uncomfortable Facts = An Attack?

There has been some whining from conservatives about the "potshots" taken at President Bush at Coretta Scott King's funeral. Bush's dad said: "I didn't like it and I thought it was kind of ugly frankly . . . Anybody that shoots at the president of the United States at a funeral, I just didn't appreciate that." Someone shot at the president? Man, even Ann Coulter has enough restraint not to actually squeeze the trigger.

What were these horrific personal attacks on Bush the younger? What brought dad out onto the porch to say "stop picking on my kid"?

The Rev. Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., drew a roaring standing ovation when he said: "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor" - a takeoff on a line from a Stevie Wonder song. The comment drew head shakes from Mr. Bush and his father as they sat behind the pulpit.

Former President Carter brought up the government response to Katrina, saying, "We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi" to know that inequality exists. He also noted that the Kings once were "victims of secret government wiretapping" - echoing Mr. Bush's domestic spying program.

Ok. Then what did they say? When did the Glocks come out?

No. That's it.

"For war, billions more, but no more for the poor." Folks, that's not an attack. It's what used to be known in these parts as a "fact" - something that has actual existence - a matter of objective reality. Follow the links and judge for yourself.

Isn't it appropriate to point out, at a funeral honoring a peace activist who dedicated her life to helping the disadvantaged, that there is still much to be done to realize her vision? Why would that make the Bushes squirm? Isn't the president comfortable with his request for $120 billion more for Iraq and his request to cut programs for the less advantaged?

If Bush attends the funeral of Elton John (no, he's not dead - yet), I just hope they don't attack Bush by letting Elton's husband speak. Or at least he shouldn't say anything about how he was happy to be married or that Elton believed they had a right to be married. That would just politicize the whole funeral and turn it into an attack on Bush's policies.

Maybe Bush should just skip funerals for people who spent their lives working for things he disagrees with. I mean, that was his original plan.

Now to Carter. He didn't bring up the "government response to Katrina," as the article suggests. Carter said that Katrina showed us that poverty too often falls along racial lines. This also seems appropriate at Mrs. King's funeral.

What if Carter had said the following:

As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.

Would that have been an attack on Bush? Would it matter that Bush himself said that?

Finally, Carter noted the resistance the Kings faced in their struggle to help blacks gain equality - including wiretapping by the government. Again, a fact. Unless Bush thinks it was a good idea to wiretap King, how is this an attack on Bush? Was it forbidden to note that the Kings struggled valiantly even against the government?

This is a neat example of the right wing crying victim and simply making up a "controversy" out of thin air. Oh, how Bush was inappropriately smeared! This is almost bad as War on Christmas (note: the "Bush Administration" has yet to clearly state its position as to whether it can violate our civil rights pursuant to the executive war power for the duration of the War on Christmas).