The continuing public squabble between the White House on one side, and the Gold Star widow and Florida Congresswoman on the other is unseemly and could benefit from some perspective. This is not a "he said; she said" dispute, although it appears to have devolved to a playground style shouting match. . In reality, it does reflect, in my view, a test of character, a profile of the substance and quality of leadership of the Nation. PUTHOP ["Person Unfortunately and Technically Holding Office of President"] made a phone call to the wife of US soldier, Sgt. La David T. Johnson, killed in action as she awaited return of the soldier's body at the airport. With her in the car were Congresswoman Frederica Wilson and other relatives of the soldier. By the virtually identical accounts of PUTHOP's own words witnessed by others, because both ends of the call were on speaker phone, he was inept in handling a sensitive conversation. That he apparently did not even know the name of the slain soldier reflects a lack of preparation and command of detailed facts PUTHOP has consistently displayed. That he referred to the slain soldier as "your guy" instead of "your husband" when speaking to the widow showed lack of sensitivity. Nevertheless, PUTHOP did actually make a call, this is a difficult but "leadership" responsibility of the Commander in Chief.
Now for "perspective" and assessment of character. It is fair to argue that a man of substance and character has strength and courage to admit failings when brought to his attention. We all make mistakes, but character is displayed by owning our shortcomings, making apologies when called for, and committing to do better in the future. As we would say in my culture, "a grown a$$ man" would have acknowledged: "you know, I just am not good at empathy and offering condolences, but I AM sorry for your loss." [Even if he did not have such reflective talents, his Aides should have guided his response.] His ineptitude would likely have been given a pass because he made the effort, and the matter would have faded away. After all, a man who has cultivated fame based upon insensitivity by threatening and bullying people in a "reality TV" show could be expected to lack capacity for sincerity and empathy.
However, instead of showing humility, character and sincerity, PUTHOP chose to defensively "counter-punch" against criticism. Instead of seeking to downplay a very sensitive exchange involving a grieving widow, he opted to make himself the center of attention, needlessly and for all the wrong reasons. Unable to admit his shortcomings displayed in the call, he chose instead to publicly attack [yet again] a Gold Star family, and accuse the widow and the Congresswoman of fabricating the account of the communication. He even chose to drag Gen. Kelly into the fray, despite a well known desire by the General NOT to discuss or politicize the death of his son, also a US soldier killed in action. PUTHOP also claimed that prior Presidents did not make condolence communications with families of the fallen, a claim that was easily and almost immediately proven false. And the squabble has continued with further false attack claims made against the Congresswoman.
Gen Kelly does not get a pass on this either. Given the opportunity to display courage and leadership rather than boot-licking, he chose to try to defend PUTHOP's indefensible conduct [which he should have intervened,as Chief of Staff, to prevent]. In that "defense" he actually confirmed and validated the widow's version of the call's substance, and debated the interpretation of what PUTHOP "meant to convey." Again, if true, this explanation would have come more credibly from PUTHOP's own mouth rather than as "clean up" by one of his lackeys.
Ultimately what is media circus and underlying events have displayed is a person in a position of high office and great responsibility who lacks sensitivity, candor, courage and sound judgment required of that office. The treatment of Gold Star families is a serious and weighty responsibility for an Administration, and must be handled with greater skill and sensitivity. This was bungled, even under the most charitable description. In addition, however, the handling of a matter involving a soldier killed in action is poignant when it indicates the potential for rash, insensitive, ill-prepared, factually ungrounded and knee-jerk decision making that could cost many MORE lives of US military personnel and others. The test of character has been failed, and PUTHOP once again shown to be unfit for the office and duties of President. The profile of PUTHOP, through his own behavior and decisions, is one of incompetence that brings shame on himself and the Office of the Presidency.
