Bush and funerals and hugs--Defense 2

Defense 2: Bush can't show favoritism and must keep a balance.

A November 5, 2003, article from the New York Times began with the following: "When the Chinook helicopter was shot down on Sunday in Iraq, killing 15 Americans, President Bush let his defense secretary do the talking and stayed out of sight at his ranch. The president has not attended the funeral of any American soldiers killed in action, White House officials say." Although the article mostly expressly addresses Bush's refusal to openly speak about specific casualties, the White House approach discussed therein applies equally to funerals. But why would Bush be so reluctant to publicly mention such things? The article answers that question and then reveals the White House solution:

The quandary for Mr. Bush, administration officials say, is in finding a balance: expressing sympathy for fallen soldiers without drawing more attention to the casualties by commenting daily on every new death.

White House officials say their strategy, for now, is to avoid having the president mention some deaths but not others, and so avoid inequity. (Mr. Bush does send a personal letter to the family of every soldier killed in action and has met privately with relatives at military bases.)

"He never wants to elevate or diminish one sacrifice made over another," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director.

Or, as another White House official put it: "If you're the brother or mother of a soldier who was killed on Saturday, and nothing was said, and then the president says something on Sunday? Unless the president starts saying it for all of them, he can't do it."

"If a helicopter were hit an hour later, after he came out and spoke, should he come out again?" Mr. Bartlett said. The public "wants the commander in chief to have proper perspective and keep his eye on the big picture and the ball. At the same time, they want their president to understand the hardship and sacrifice that many Americans are enduring at a time of war. And we believe he's striking that balance."

O.K....Bush has not spoken about specific casualties and has not attended any funerals because he wants to be fair and not show any kind of favoritism toward anyone. What that means, given the statement that "Unless the president starts saying it for all of them, he can't do it," is that Bush feels that it's an "all or nothing" deal, and since he can't all of it, he just won't do any of it at all. Now that's what I call balance.

Still, I concede that attending services does raise a legitimate concern about time. The President of the United States does not have the flexibility to change his schedule on a regular basis, and funerals are necessarily planned on short notice. Consequently, it is not reasonable to expect Bush to attend many funerals. Still, consider these points: 1) again, my complaint is that Bush has not attended even one funeral or memorial service; 2) memorial services can be planned more in advance.

I agree with Bartlett that Americans "want their president to understand the hardship and sacrifice that many Americans are enduring at a time of war," but what Bartlett apparently fails to grasp is that Americans want to know that the President has that understanding, and we cannot know that if he does not display it publicly in some manner that truly resonates with us. A good example of that was provided by one of Bush's most prominent supporters--Rudolph Guiliani--but I'll discuss that in more detail later.