The other night, during the President’s SOTU speech, he honored the parents of a fallen soldier. Here is an excerpt of the President’s comments and a description of what happened next from James Taranto:

Iraq synecdochically thanked America for its freedom last night. During his State of the Union address, President Bush introduced a couple who were sitting with the first lady, Janet and Bill Norwood. The Norwoods’ son, Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood, was killed during the liberation of Fallujah. Said the president:

His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, “When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said, ‘You’ve done your job, Mom. Now it is my turn to protect you.’ ” Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom’s defenders, and our military families.

Whereupon another honored guest, Iraqi human-rights advocate Safia Taleb al-Suhail, stood, turned and embraced Mrs. Norwood, who was seated behind her. It would take a bitter cynic indeed–a man like Tom Shales–not to be moved by this.

Immediately following the President’s speech all the talking heads on the left began obsessing about “The Hug.” Was it a setup? Was the President cynically manipulating these parents for political gain, yadda, yadda, yadda. Here is an excerpt from Chris Matthews’ show, Hardball, where Matthews REALLY gets extreme:

MATTHEWS: I guess the only question is whether that Iraqi woman was prompted to go up and hug Janet Norwood by some staffer.

O‘DONNELL: Oh, who cares?

MATTHEWS: Who cares?

REAGAN: I don‘t know that that…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I think some people care.

REAGAN: Yes, I don‘t know that—I wouldn‘t go that far.

MATTHEWS: It‘s a question. It‘s an open question. I think the emotion was spontaneous.

REAGAN: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: It‘s a question as to how much P.R. went into that thing.

REAGAN: Yes.

Both things are true. There is spontaneous emotion there. And I certainly would honor it.

And, Joe, you can call it cynicism if you want. All I‘m saying is, it makes me uncomfortable when people are being used for a reason that is political. Now, if they got something good out of it, then that‘s more important. But that is simply an observation on my part…

MATTHEWS: You know what I think?

I am asking the question because I live in Washington and have watched these. And I will bet you, within the next couple of days, what we are speculating about now, we will know more about, which White House staffer takes credit for putting them so close to each other, who might have indicated to the Iraqi woman it would be appropriate at that moment, when the president addressed Ms. Norwood, that she could go up and embrace her.

You never know how much goes on behind the scenes when everything it seems isn‘t true.

That sounds almost like Matthews wants to launch a full congressional investigation. “What did these people know and when did they know it?!” Please!

As always, I have a theory.

Perhaps some on the left are so outraged by this hug because it was, in one spontaneous act, a complete vindication of our belief in the mission that our troops have been fulfilling these past two years. It was a beautiful moment when an Iraqi citizen, fresh from the monumentally successful vote this past week, embraced the parents of a fallen soldier in a heartfelt thank you for all that our troops have done for that nation.

Ironic, don’t you think, that Ron Reagan Jr. should accuse the President of using the Norwoods as a political prop when he and other members of the left have been using our troops for that purpose since the war on terror began. And that goes to the heart of my argument… People like Ron Reagan, Jr., Chris Matthews, etc., would rather invent a conspiracy than believe that our troops are doing the right thing.

Sad but true.

Finally, let me just offer one more excerpt from an excellent article that I read today by Charles Krauthammer (hat tip to Laura Ingraham):

Iraqis turned out to vote in great numbers, with great enthusiasm and determination. Surprise. The media have not been as surprised, noted a friend of mine, since the Nicaraguans turned out in their 1990 election to kick out the Sandinistas…

The liberal cliche of the time was that Third World people care more about food than about freedom. This kind of contempt for the political and spiritual dignity of people who live in different circumstances never goes away. It simply gets applied serially to different sets of patronized foreigners…

Leading Democrats are discomfited by this demonstration of Iraqi support for the Bush Doctrine. John Kerry urges that we not “overhype this election.”

Sorry that the quote is kind of snipped up, but I would rather not pull too much out of a story that should really be read in its entirety.

Whether you read the story or not, there is no doubt in my mind that Krauthammer is right on the money with his points. Iraqis are dancing in the streets, celebrating the end of tyranny, and expressing their gratitude for the part our troops have played. Meanwhile, so many left-leaning talking heads and DNC leaders (not all, but too too many) are trying to downplay it all.

Once again, they’ve landed on the wrong side of history. I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com