Bush and funerals and hugs--Defense 3

Defense 3: Bush writes letters and visits with families

I bet you Republicans were thinking that I was being "idiotic, mean-spirited, ill-informed, and partisan" because I failed to discuss the fact that Bush writes letters to the families and has met with some families. Think again.

• Letters

According to this article from the New York Daily News, Bush

has told friends the part of the Iraq war he dreads the most is writing letters to the families of slain soldiers.

*******

Before the war began, former President George Bush warned his son that sending such letters would be the most agonizing duty of his wartime presidency.

Bush has told friends that his dad was all too right, and that he has come to dread the letters.

In spite of his dread, Dan Bartlett (White House Communications Director) said, "The president writes a letter to every family of a fallen soldier[.]" Is that so? For an answer, I turned first to a woman I met during this political season. She is an Army veteran, as is her husband. She is also a VFW and American Legion member, a law professor, and an Army mom whose oldest son has been deployed in Iraq most of this year. She told me that the letters were form letters. I was suprised, but then shocked by what she told me next--that Bush's "signature" was stamped, not handwritten. I thought that neither of these things could be true, especially in light of what I knew Bush had said in his December 2002 20/20 interview (be patient, I will reveal that in time). I then went to the web to see if I could find out more. I found this December 5, 2003, article at Newsweek online, which confirmed part of what I had been told.

So I asked some families about the sympathy letters they had received. I assumed that they were in the Bush family style. Both his father and his mother come from a generation of note writers. His mother’s Christmas list is notoriously long and his father is famous for his handwritten notes. This Bush has followed suit, often using his thick Sharpie to pen short notes to friends, foes and fund-raisers.

But those are not the letters Bush is “writing.” They are form letters. With the exception of the salutation and a reference to the fallen soldier in the text, the letters the families shared with me are all the same. Now some one has gone to the trouble of finding out if the given name of the solider and the name he or she used were different.

Well, at least someone on the White House staff does work to get the names right. Jean Prewett's son Kelley was a 24-year old Army private. He was killed in Iraq on April 6, 2003. "When her son died, she said, she received a 'little snippet of a letter' from the president saying how sorry he and his wife, First Lady Laura Bush, were over Kelley Prewett's death." Carolyn Hutchings had a 20-year old son, Nolen Ryan Hutchings, who was a Marine. He died in Baghdad on March 23, 2003. She received what she called a "typed, generic letter" of condolence from President Bush. "I'm sure everybody got the same one," Hutchings said. "I'm not impressed at all." And what did this generic snippet say? Ernest Dumas of the Arkansas Times wrote a December 12, 2003 column which reproduced the letter:

The short note to grieving family members, it turns out, is an automated form letter: "Laura andI send our heartfelt sympathy. Our nation will not forget _______'s sacrifice and unselfish dedication in our efforts to make the world more peaceful and free."

That's it.

Dumas went on to give an overall description of Bush's expression of sympathy:

A functionary in the correspondence section of the White House crafts a proper note, a computer inserts the address and salutation along with the fallen soldier's first name at the appropriate spot in the text and the president's automated signature, and the mail is franked and dispatched according to the Department of Defense's timetable for managing the government's affairs with the dead. It is so much more antiseptic.

So everyone gets the same form letter. That seems rather impersonal, but to make sure it's even more impersonal, according to my Army mom friend and Dumas, Bush didn't even sign his name. Rather, it was stamped on. And here's one more confirmation from this article from Intervention Magazine, which describes a conversation with Barbara Porchia:

Barbara's son, Jonathan Cheatham, was killed in Iraq at the age of only 19. This was on July 26, nine months ago, in a truck convoy on the deadly road between the Baghdad Airport and Falluja.

*******

Shortly after her son’s death, Barbara received a letter from the President. At the bottom of the letter was George Bush’s signature. But it was a stamped signature! “That told me how much he thought of my son getting killed. Only three or four were killed that day. What would it have taken for him to sign that letter? How long?”

However, according to the Newsweek article, "Bush does sign them all personally." Obviously, the Newsweekwriter (either Martha Brant or T.Trent Gegax) saw some of the letters. It appears that Dumas also saw an actual letter. And I know Barbara Porchia received one of the letters. And I know that Army mom has seen the letters. She is very active in veterans' groups and has had personal contact with families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. From all this, I conclude that at best George W. Bush personally signed some of the form letters.

Recall that Bush said he has come to dread writing letters to the families of deceased soldiers. Well, now we know how he deals with that dread--he simply doesn't write them, and he only personally signs a few of them.

Is this how the President of the United States should behave? This man, who tells everyone that he is strong and decisive, who made the decision to go to war and spill the blood of American soldiers, cannot bring himself to write a personal letter to the families of soldiers that died because of his orders or at least personally sign every letter? Bush likes to present himself as a down-to-earth common man from West Texas. Well, I am also from that part of the world, and to put Bush's actions into a West Texas context, all I have to say is "That ain't right." For reasons I won't detail here, people in West Texas don't treat each other like that.

But above and beyond "that ain't right," Bush's conduct falls far short of Presidential caliber. A President not only has to make tough decisions, a President has to be willing to fully face the consequences--good or bad--of those decisions. And here is a President who apparently cannot face the most basic and obvious consequence of his "decisive action." I do not believe he is unaware of this consequence. After all, his own father explained it to him and W his ownself said that he dreads writing the letters. He apparently does not have what it takes to face the impact of his decisions at the most basic, human level possible. How can anyone expect him to deal with all the other consequences of HIS decision to go to war? If he cannot truly face the consequences of his decisions, how can anyone expect him to make responsible decisions? Let me put this another way. If Bush cannot face up to the adverse effect his decisions have on one family, how can anyone expect him to truly consider the consequences his decisions--such as going to war--have on the entire nation? And why is this important? Because someone who cannot face up to consequences tends to disregard them in making decisions. And that damn sure is not what this country needs in a President. Sadly, it appears that is what we have.

• Meetings with families

I know what some of you Republicans are now thinking: 1) I'm just idiotic and mean-spirited because 2) Bush has met with families of those killed in Iraq.

For information about these meetings, I once again turned to the Army mom. She said that these meetings all took place after the loved ones had been buried. She also said that those who got to meet with Bush were basically vetted–meaning they were screened and selected ahead of time. I believe this, given the way that the White House meticulously scripts each and every event. (See the “White House Media Magicians” section of George’s Aircraft Carrier Carnival.)

As much as I trust the Army mom, I decided I should once again search the web for more information. From what I could find, Bush has had four such meetings: 1) Camp Lejeune in North Carolina on April 2, 2003; 2) Fort Stewart in Georgia on September 12, 2003; 3) Fort Carson in Colorado on November 24, 2003; and 4) a meeting somewhere after early April, 2004.

The day before the meeting at Camp Lejeune, then Press Secretary Ari Fleischer described how the meeting would be handled:

I think it's going to be sad. I think it's going to be, if I know the President, a tough meeting, an emotional meeting. But from his point of view, it's an important meeting. This is part of the duties of the Commander-in-Chief, and this is part of his job.

*******

And then what he'll typically do is he will go in and just spend time with every single individual soul in that room...He just spends so much time with each one. He kind of just locks in on the individual he happens to be talking to at that moment. And it's almost as if there's nobody else in the room, except those two. That's how he talks to -- and Mrs. Bush will, of course, be with him for this, as well.

(emphasis added). WRAL, a local TV station, filed this report on the Camp Lejeune meeting:

Bush and his wife Laura met in a chapel annex with about 20 family members of five Camp Lejeune-based Marines killed in Iraq. The meeting was private, but a senior White House official described it afterward. The names of the families were withheld.

"He loved being a Marine," Bush was told. "He loved his country." "He was proud to serve."
A teary-eyed Bush assured the families, "The world will be more peaceful" and "I'm proud of you."

It was Bush's first meeting with relatives of slain troops since the war began two weeks ago.

*******

"There's a tradition in the Corps that no one who falls will be left behind in the battlefield," Bush said. "Our country has a tradition as well. No one who falls will be forgotten by this grateful nation."

(emphasis added). Remember the emphasized excerpts.

The next meeting took place on September 12, 2003, at Fort Stewart in Georgia. Here’s part of the AP report on Bush’s day:

After his speech, Bush shared "hugs, laughs and tears" with relatives of 11 soldiers who didn't return, a senior administration official said.

Afterward, the president flew to Jackson, Miss., to raise money for Haley Barbour, former Republican Party chairman who is challenging Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove in Mississippi. In a sign of the race's importance, Barbour is the only GOP candidate this year to win campaign appearances by both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The last stop for the day was another fund-raiser -- for the Power Center in Houston, a one-stop community development center founded 10 years ago in an abandoned Kmart by a Bush friend who delivered his inauguration benediction, the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell.

Take note of two things: 1) this meeting brought the total number of families with whom Bush met to 16; 2) Bush spent most of his day fund raising.

The third meeting was on November 24, 2003 at Fort Carson in Colorado. The Washington Post said that

President Bush held a rare meeting Monday with families of fallen soldiers, spending close to two hours hugging and listening tearfully to survivors at a military base that has been among the nation's hardest hit by casualties in Iraq.

Bush met privately with 98 relatives of 26 lost soldiers after offering condolences and encouragement at a rally of 5,000 camouflage-clad, flag-waving military members and families from throughout Colorado. With the survivors grouped in four rooms, Bush autographed mementos as he heard the stories about their loved ones. One father told the president that his son "died for freedom," according to a Bush aide.

Erin Emery of the Denver Post added that

Family members said they saw a human side to the president. "He was just a regular American who came to talk to us. ... I was touched by that," said Dave Bader, whose brother, Staff Sgt. Daniel Bader, was killed in Iraq.

This was all very good. It seems that these meetings were very helpful. And the number of families Bush had met was then 42. However, in light of Defense 2, I have some concerns. Recall that under Defense 2, the object "is to avoid having the president mention some deaths but not others, and so avoid inequity" because "Unless the president starts saying it for all of them, he can't do it." Bush violated that rule in his speech at Fort Carson prior to meeting with the families. In that speech he said

The Fort Carson community said farewell to some of your best. One of them was Staff Sergeant Daniel Bader. This good man left behind his wife, Tiffany, and their 14-month-old daughter. Tiffany Bader said this to a reporter recently, "I'm going to wait until she is old enough to realize what happened, and I will tell her exactly what her daddy did for her. He died serving his country so that my little girl could grow up free."

He did not mention any other deceased soldier by name. So apparently, Defense 2 is selectively applied. This fact raises a question about these family meetings. At the time of the Fort Carson event, the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq was 437. That meant there were 395 families Bush had not met. What happened to avoiding inequity? What happened to "if he does it for one he has to do it for everybody?" Look, I am not saying that I think Bush should have visited with every single family. I am simply pointing out that according to the White House's own stated rationale, either Bush should have met with either no families or all families, or Defense 2 is bogus.

Perhaps the number of families Bush met by November 24, 2003 was greater than 42. The Washington Post article stated that Bush has also invited families to the White House for his weekly radio addresses. I have not found any reports of such meetings, but perhaps that is how Cindy Sheehan met Bush. Her son Casey was killed in Baghdad on April 4, 2004. She was interviewed by BuzzFlash.com on October 7, 2004. Here is the last part of that interview:

BuzzFlash:What would you say to President Bush if you could sit down in the same room and speak to him directly?

Cindy Sheehan: I actually got to meet face to face with the president. He called me "Mom" because he didn’t know my name, and he didn’t know my son’s name -- he just knows that he’s meeting with these families that have lost loved ones. He said, "Mom, I can’t imagine the pain you’re going through."

I said, "I think you can imagine it a little bit, Mr. President. You have daughters. How would you feel if one of them was killed?"

I told him, "Trust me, Mr. President –- you don’t want to go there."

He said, "You’re right. I don’t."

(emphasis added). Go back and look at what Ari Fleischer said about how Bush would handle these meetings--"He kind of just locks in on the individual he happens to be talking to at that moment. And it's almost as if there's nobody else in the room, except those two." Do you think he did that with Cindy Sheehan? I do not, and, frankly, I do not see how anyone could.

Now go back and look at what else Fleischer said--that having these meetings "is part of the duties of the Commander-in-Chief, and this is part of his job." Then why has he met only a fraction of the families of soldiers killed in a war that he ordered?

Now recall what he said in his speech at Camp Lejeune: "Our country has a tradition as well. No one who falls will be forgotten by this grateful nation."

He has not met with all the families. In at least one meeting he did not know the name of "Mom" or her dead son. Looks like even if the nation will not forget Casey Sheehan, President Bush already has.

Look back at this entire section on meetings with families and see if you agree or disagree with my conclusion: these meetings do not justify or make up for Bush's complete absence at funerals or memorial services. Indeed, Bush's conduct pretty much shoots down Defense 2 for not attending those services.

And now look once again at the end of the Sheehan interview. Bush does not want to even consider how he would feel if one of his children was killed, and yet he made the decision that has resulted in the deaths of over 1000 children. Do you want a leader who acts that way? Once again, here is evidence that Bush will not face up to the most basic consequences of his decisions. And once again I say that someone who cannot face up to consequences tends to disregard them in making decisions. And that damn sure is not what this country needs in a President.