Bush and funerals and hugs--Defense 6

Defense 6: We don't need a therapist and attending funerals is not the best way to honor the fallen.

In this post, the reason why the title of this series says "and hugs" will become apparent. Thank you for your patience and perseverance.

Sullivan's piece quotes at length a November 14, 2003 New York Times editorial by Andrew Rosenthal. Defense 6 was a response to this portion of the Rosenthal editorial:

But someone of rank from the White House could and should be at each and every military funeral. Ideally, Mr. Bush would shake the hand of someone who loved every person who dies in uniform–a small demand on his time in a war in which the casualties are still relatively small. And he has more than enough advisers, cabinet secretaries and other officials so attending funerals should not be such an inconvenience.

Here was Sullivan's response:

At least this suggestion makes more practical sense than the idea that the president should attend every single funeral himself. But it still reeks of an attitude that somehow the leading officials in our government should now be therapists-in-chief. Yes, it's a good idea for some officials to attend some funerals when they can. Yes, the president should write every grief-stricken family (as he does). But the main job of government officials should be fighting the war so that fewer casualties result and victory comes sooner rather than later. This is the real way of honoring the fallen: ensuring that their sacrifice is not in vain.

Is a hugger a therapist?

So we don't need a "therapist-in-chief." I cannot fully disagree with that, but, then again, I don't have to. Rudy Giuliani has already done that. More importantly, George W. Bush his ownself has already done so. On December 13, 2002, ABC aired a Barbara Walters interview with Bush. I particularly liked this exchange:

BARBARA WALTERS

Well, if you were certain that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, would you go ahead with the war on Iraq without the support of the United Nations?

PRESIDENT BUSH

You’re doing a find job of trying to pin me down on the hypothetical... and I will deal with those issues if they come. But let me talk about war in general if you don’t mind. War is my last option, not my first option. See, it’s easy in this town for people to commit troops, the US troops, to combat, through opinion and the noise you hear in Washington. But there’s only one person who is responsible for making that decision, and that’s me. And there’s only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids on the death of their loved ones. Others hug, but having committed the troops, I’ve got an additional responsibility to hug, and that’s me, and I know what it’s like. It’s hard to know that you’ve sent a loved one into battle and the loved one doesn’t return.

(emphasis added). Now I know what some of you Republicans are thinking: this does not show that Bush thinks his job is to be a "therapist" because he never used that word. No, instead he said he has to to the "hugger-in-chief." Face it: Bush's own words destroy Sullivan's argument--unless anyone wants to approach defining "is.".

Funerals and memorials are real--and important--ways of honoring the fallen.

As for the "real way of honoring the fallen," Sullivan appears to be saying that attending funerals is not important. Please remember that I am not arguing that Bush should attend every funeral. In fact, I have not seen that argument raised by anyone. Yet Sullivan never addresses the possibility of Bush attending even one funeral or memorial. Instead, he says only that "some officials" should "attend funerals when they can." For Sullivan, apparently it is enough that Bush "write[s] every grief-stricken family." Well, we now know that Bush does no such thing. As explained in Defense 3, the letters are two-sentence form letters that have stamped signatures.

Sullivan then further discounts the importance of funerals by saying that "the main job of government officials should be fighting the war so that fewer casualties result and victory comes sooner rather than later." Well, no shit, Sherlock. Of course that is the main job. BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY JOB. Here is a variation of the Bush "We have no choice" tactic at work. Sullivan states something that is so obviously true and beyond argument and then acts as if there is no other task that is important. As established by Bush's "hugger-in-chief" statements and Giuliani's pronouncements on funerals, there are other duties which are very important. However, Sullivan seems to say that since "fighting the war" is "the main job," there are no other jobs. If you disagree, then you're saying that fighting the war is not the main job, and that means you don't support the troops, and that means you hate freedom.

Also, Sullivan does not even address the significance of funerals (nor does Krauthammer nor any other defense of Bush I have seen). "Ensuring their sacrifice is not in vain" is certainly a good way to honor the fallen, but it is far from the only way. Funerals and memorial services are also a very good way to do that. See, part of ensuring their sacrifice is not in vain is acknowledging that there has been a sacrifice. Yes, in various speeches Bush has mentioned the sacrifice made by our fallen soldiers, but that does not equate with appearing at a funeral or memorial service. Here are some examples so you can judge for yourself. From the speech at Camp Lejeune on April 3, 2003:

People of this country take pride in your victories, and we share in your losses. Camp Lejeune has lost some good Marines. Every person who dies in the line of duty leaves a family that lives in grief. Every Marine who dies in the line of duty leaves comrades who mourn their loss.

Bush did not say anything else about those who died. Oh, wait...he did also say (as noted in Defense 3) "There is a tradition in the Corps that no one who falls will be left behind on the battlefield. Our country has a tradition, as well. No one who falls will be forgotten by this grateful nation." You know, in order to make sure no one is forgotten, it helps to mention their names. Here is Bush's one comment about the ultimate sacrifice at Fort Stewart on September 12, 2003:

The people of our military have faced many hardships in Iraq, and you faced them with courage. You know the names of some who fought for our country and didn't come home, who died in the line of duty. You remember them as comrades and friends. This nation will remember them for their unselfish courage, for their sacrifice in a time of danger to America. We honor their memory. We pray for God's comfort on their family and loved ones.

Of course, the families and soldiers at Fort Stewart know the names of their fallen, but does Bush? Do the rest of us know? Again, in order for us to remember, we must first know their names. In Defense 3, I showed that at Fort Carson on November 24, 2003, Bush specifically mentioned the death of one soldier, Staff Sargeant Daniel Bader, and I also pointed out that Bush violated Defense 2 (Bush has to show balance and not specifically name one death). After Mentioning Sargeant Bader, Bush said "And all our military families that mourn can know this: Our nation will never forget the sacrifice their loved one made to protect us all." Again, we must know something before we can remember it. Making short statements in a few speeches that do not have a national audience does not accomplish that objective.

Bush did come closer to doing that at his Veterans' Day speech on November 11, 2003.

On this Veterans Day, with our nation at war, Americans are deeply aware of the current military struggle and of recent sacrifice. Young Americans have died in liberating Iraq and Afghanistan. They've died in securing freedom in those countries. The loss is terrible. It is borne especially by the families left behind. But in their hurt and in their loneliness, I want these families to know your loved one served in a good and just cause. They died in distant lands to fight terror, to advance freedom and to protect America.

Here was Bush on a national stage speaking of American deaths in Iraq. That is good, but not good enough for two reasons: 1) the reference is short and general--not enough to truly exhibit or induce reverance; and 2) it was part of ceremony that was intended as something else. In others words, this Veterans' Day ceremony was not something specifically to honor the dead in Iraq. Indeed, it was not designed to do that at all. Any doubt in this regard is resolved by this line from Bush's speech: "They did not live to be called veterans, but this nation will never forget their lives of service and all they did for us." (emphasis added). Consequently, no one can claim that this Veterans' Day Service was the same thing as a memorial service for those who died in Iraq.

And why is that Bush refuses to have a similar service for those who died in Iraq? Read the entire Veterans' Day speech. Why couldn't Bush have one service where he says as much about those who gave their lives for this country in Iraq? Why is it that he can publicly acknowledge with depth and eloquence the deaths of all our Veterans and not do the same for those that were killed in this current war? Do they not also deserve that recognition, that reverance, that honor?

They do deserve all of that, and they deserve it from their Commander-in-Chief.

I found a newspaper editorial that expressed some of the reasons why I feel so strongly about this issue. That such an editorial existed did not surprise me. However, I was surprised to find it in the Washington Times, which is perhaps the most conservative, pro-Bush paper in the country. The editorial addressed the ban on media coverage of coffins arriving at Dover Air Base, but it expresses views that are also relevant to the funeral issue. Before discussing the editorial, I will briefly discuss the Dover ban.

Dover has the largest military mortuary in the country, and it is where the remains of U.S. soldiers are initially received in this country. As reported intially in the Washington Post,

In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains.

This ban received a great deal of attention and generated a good bit of controversy, particularly after some photos were released and published in April of this year. I am not going to discuss the Dover ban in detail for two reasons: 1) this ban has actually been in place since 1991, so it is not as if this President Bush instituted it out of the blue; and 2) the arrival of the remains is not the same as a funeral or memorial service. That being said, there are common factors between these issues, and, as I will discuss in Defense 7, having the President at some sort of service at Dover could suffice as the public acknowledgement and tribute I want to see from Bush.

One of the "common factors" is the privacy of the families (this is Defense 7). On April 29, 2004, the Washington Times ran an editorial which sharply criticized the Dover ban:

The official reason is that the government wants to protect the "privacy" of the families, and that photographs of anonymous coffins, covered by the flag, will further wound the feelings of families. We're surprised that someone at the Pentagon couldn't come up with better spin than this.

The editorial went on to explain its criticism of the Dover ban:

But trying to hide the painful but necessary reality that Americans are dying in Iraq does no favor for the cause. President Bush frequently reminds us that we are at war, and the American people understand that war is deadly business. If the sight of a hero's coffin is bad politics in an election year -- which we emphatically doubt -- well, we are all called to sacrifice in a time of war.

The ultimate sacrifice of American heroes should be honored, not hidden away, and there is no more eloquent way to honor it than by the solemn display of a military coffin bearing the body of a hero under the flag of a grateful nation. We have rarely published a more profound tribute to heroes than the photograph, of a lone soldier saluting rows of coffins of American warriors aboard the plane bearing them home, on our front page on Friday.

(emphasis added). I have to concede that 1) this editorial does not address the funeral issue, and 2) I have not yet found a Washington Times editorial on the funeral issue. Consequently, my use of this editorial cannot said to represent the views of the editorial board of the Washington Times. Nonetheless, it shows that the Washington Times feels our fallen soldiers should be publicly honored, particularly in light of the fact that "Bush frequently reminds us we are at war." That is how I feel about the funeral issue. As former Reagan staffer John B. Roberts II wrote in a November 19, 2003, New York Times editorial,

[T]here is an asymmetry to the administration's use of the military in presidential events. It is wrong to bask publicly in glory on the deck of an aircraft carrier unless you are also willing to grieve openly for fallen soldiers. You can't wrap yourself in the flag while avoiding flag-draped coffins.

I also found something from the Office of the Secretary of Defense which supports my views. The DoD has a website devoted to Military Funeral Honors. The home page contains the following:

Honoring Those Who Served

The rendering of Military Funeral Honors is a way to show the Nation’s deep gratitude to those who, in times of war and peace, have faithfully defended our country. This ceremonial paying of respect is the final demonstration a grateful nation can provide to the veterans’ families.

Thus, according to the official policy of our Department of Defense, a military funeral is a tangible way to show the deep gratitude and respect of the Nation, and yet our own Commander-in-Chief refuses to follow this policy. And by the way, don't think that by saying "veterans'" this policy does not apply to active duty personnel, for they are expressly eligible for Military Funeral Honors. As the elected leader of our Nation, the President is the one person who can ceremoniously represent all of us, and thus express the gratitude of the entire Nation by attending a military funeral. And how would that hurt our morale? Anybody? Bueller? In his editorial, Roberts expressed this view with great eloquence:

The commander in chief should publicly honor the individual lives sacrificed in war. He should show his respect in front of the television cameras. A nation is a community, and the lives that are lost belong not just to their families, but to us all. As the only political figure who represents the whole nation, the duty of commemorating these deaths belongs uniquely to the president.

Moreover, given that George W. Bush is the person who ordered our soldiers to go to war, I thought that he would at show his personal gratitude for this ultimate sacrifice by attending at least one military funeral or memorial service.

And where did I get such a crazy idea? I'm not really sure, but I do know someone else who had--and acted on--the same idea: Ronald Reagan. Roberts described in his editorial a memorial service Reagan attended.

In the middle of the night on Oct. 23, 1983, the White House learned that suicide bombers had struck in Lebanon. At the Beirut airport, 241 marines were killed in their barracks. Ten minutes later a second suicide bomber killed 58 French soldiers two miles away. The next morning I was asked if I could get away from my job in the White House policy planning office for a few days to handle the press advance if President Ronald Reagan decided to attend a memorial service for the slain marines.

If the president decided to go, I said, I'd go too. I come from a military family. My father fought in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. I understood the importance of honoring fallen troops, but I didn't look forward to going to Camp Lejeune, N.C. I still remembered what it was like to have childhood friends become fatherless overnight.

*******

Two days later, with the Grenada invasion under way, the president made up his mind about the memorial service: he was going to go.

*******

The president later said that going to the service was "as hard as anything" he had ever done.

*******

When a subsequent Pentagon review faulted Marine commanders in Beirut for lax security, the president shouldered the blame. "I took the full responsibility," he wrote in his memoir. "I was the one who had sent them there."

Let's review. Reagan ordered those Marines to go to Beirut, and because of that he took the responsibility for their deaths and decided to go to their memorial service.

As I said, I thought George W. Bush would at least do the same for the soldiers he sent to war. And now I must admit something that I know all the Bush apologists are dying to hear...

I was wrong.