Bush and funerals and hugs--What this series says about Bush

Let's review all the Defenses to see what this series says about Bush.

• Defense 1 (Historical)

Every President from Johnson through Clinton (with the exception of Ford) attended at least one funeral or memorial service for military personnel killed in the line of duty. Thus, while it might not be typical for a President to attend funerals, history provides no excuse for Bush's failure to attend even one funeral or memorial.

• Defense 2 (Can't show favoritism and can't address every death.)

The White House claims that Bush does not want to "elevate or diminish" any death and thus Bush will not discuss specific deaths or attend specific funerals because if he does that for one, he has to do it for everybody. First of all, no, he does not. Second, Bush has violated this "all or nothing" defense. As shown in Defense 3, he discussed at length the life and loss of one specific soldier in his speech at Fort Carson and did not mention anybody else by name. Also, as discussed in the previous post, in his Memorial Day speech on May 31, 2004, he specifically mentioned four fallen soldiers by name, but mentioned no others. These actions say the following about Bush: 1) he said one thing and did another; 2) he selectively applied this defense; and 3) this defense is bogus.

• Defense 3 (Bush writes letters and visits with families.)

According to the White House, Bush writes letters to every family who lost a loved one and meets with families, and that takes the place of going to funerals or memorials. The letters are two-sentence form letters with stamped signatures. Those letters do not substitute for the personal effort and acknowledgment shown by going to a funeral or memorial. This says that Bush does not even take the time and personal effort to actually write a letter or even sign his own name, and that does not speak to his compassion or recognition of loss.

The White House said that meeting with families of the fallen was part of Bush's duties as Commander-in-Chief. Bush met with a total of 42 families at three military bases in 2003 and some more in 2004. That is still hundreds short of the total number of families of soldiers killed in Iraq. What happened to "do it for all or do it for none?" What this says about Bush is that he has failed to fulfill his duties (as defined by his own staff) and that Defense 2 is bogus. And then there's the White House claim that when meeting with families "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," and yet when meeting with Cindy Sheehan after her son was killed in April of this year, he simply called her "Mom" because he did not know her name or the name of her son. This again says that Bush does not take the time and personal effort to do what his representatives say he will do, and that shows a lack of compassion or recognition of loss.

• Defense 4 (Blame it on Clinton.)

The Bush apologists first argue that Clinton did not attend any military funerals, but ignore the facts that he did attend a memorial service for the naval personnel killed in the U.S.S. Cole attack Bush has not attended even one memorial. Next, Bush claims he was offended by Clinton's "exploitation of public grief for private gain," and Bush's supporters cite the memorial service in Oklahoma City as an example. However, through his campaign ads, Bush exploits deaths from the 9-11 terrorist attacks for his own political gain. Moreover, in doing so, his campaign shows extreme disregard for the 9-11 families. Finally, Bush supporters argue that Clinton's public displays of grief showed a favoring of fund raisers over soldiers, and yet Bush has placed more emphasis on fund raising than the troops, and he has even used them to help his campaign. What all this says about Bush is that 1) he considers fund raising for his reelection a higher priority than the troops or the families of those killed on 9-11, and 2) he is a shameless hypocrite.

• Defense 5 (Going to funerals would help the terrorists.)

This defense really says more about Andrew Sullivan and Charles Krauthammer than Bush. To my knoweldge neither Bush not anyone at the White House has asserted this defense. However, the discussion in Defense 5 shows that attending military funerals can help raise morale and leaders who attend funerals can both receive and provide strength. What this says about Bush is that he is ignoring the importance of funerals and memorials and he refuses to follow the principles and example of one of his biggest supporters, Rudy Giuliani, that attending funerals is a mandatory duty of a real leader.

• Defense 6 (We don't need a therapist; funerals are not the best way to honor the fallen.)

Bush his ownself said in a December 2002 interview on national TV that "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." What this says about Bush is that before the war he considered part of his job to be a Hugger-in-Chief, but, through his lack of compassion and recognition of loss, he once again says one thing and does another.

As for the best way to honor the dead, attending a funeral service or memorial is more personal and meaningful than sending form letters or privately meeting some families, for three reasons: 1) in general, funerals and memorials are uniquely special and meaningful; 2) in particular, military funerals are officially recognized as "a way to show the Nation’s deep gratitude;" and 3) some sort of public recognition by the President is important for the country as a whole. As former Reagan aide John Roberts said, "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." Roberts also explained that Reagan chose to go to a memorial service for Marines killed in Beirut because he was the person who ordered them to go there. Reagan took the responsibility for their deaths and decided to go to their memorial service. George W. Bush has not done the same. What this says about Bush is that he is disregarding the public's interest in showing our grief and gratitude to those who died in the service of this nation and that he apparently does not want to take any responsibility for those losses even though he ordered those soldiers to go to war.

• Defense 7 (Protect the privacy of the families.)

Here is the one defense that makes sense. The privacy of the families is of paramount priority, and Bush's attendance at any ceremony raises real concerns about protecting that privacy. However, as shown in the previous post, there were and are ways to address these concerns. For the most part, Bush has refused to even consider doing these things. On the other hand, Bush has discussed the deaths of specific individuals. This means either that Bush was not concerned about the privacy of those families, or he has found ways to address privacy concerns--which in turn would support my position that there are readily apparent ways in which Bush could satisfy privacy issues and still publicly acknowledge and commemorate our fallen soldiers. What this says about Bush is that he is either completely ignoring actions which would allow him to attend a funeral or memorial service or he is insincerely using privacy concerns as an excuse not to attend a funeral or memorial service.

I thought I would come up with some fantastic, strong conclusion for this post and this series, but if I have not adequately conveyed my points by now, no conclusion I could write will get the job done now. I believe Bush is utterly lacking in the character needed to truly be a leader of any kind, much less President of the United States. Of all the reasons I feel that way (and there are many), the fact that he has not attended one funeral or one memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq is the #1 reason. As I said before, it is incomprehensible to me that not only has he not attended even one such ceremony, he refuses to do so. This strikes me as cowardly and deeply disrespectful of the lives of the men and women who died serving our nation in a war he ordered. This man is not a leader, and he does not deserve to be President.

I am being all righteous and indignant?

Yes.

Feel free to prove me wrong.