Bush and hugs and funerals--What could have been done

The objective and the interests involved

The objective is to publicly recognize and honor our fallen troops in a non-politicized way while protecting the privacy of the families of the fallen. To listen to Bush's defenders, there is just no way this could possibly ever be done. However, as the posts on Defenses 1-6 show, the excuses given for Bush's conduct are just that--excuses. Once they are examined, they are exposed as largely baseless.

The reality is that there were and are several options available to Bush. The reality is that he could have met the objective rather easily. Unfortunately, the reality also is that not only he has done nothing to meet the objective, he has refused to even try.

Remember that my criticism of Bush is based on two related principles: 1) funerals and memorial services have special meaning in honoring the fallen, and 2) sending letters (especially form letters with stamped signatures) and a few private meetings with families does not take the place of attending funerals or memorials.

Option 1: Attend a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery.

Given the title of this series and my emphasis on the unique nature of funerals, this is my top option. However, as noted in Defense 7, the privacy concerns are of paramount importance. Bush could have easily attended a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is just a few miles west of the White House across the Potomoc River. To date, 89 soldiers killed in Iraq have been buried in Arlington National Cemetery since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The privacy concerns could have been addressed in large part by enforcing rules that already existed. As reported by the Washington Post and ABC News on November 14, 2003, there were media restrictions in place designed to protect the privacy of families during a burial at Arlington National Cemetery. According to ABC News, the "guidelines state that 'reporters are no longer permitted to stand at the rear of the mourners during the service,' and microphones 'are not permitted … anywhere near the grave site.'" As described by the Washington Post, this means that "Reporters will be restricted to a roped-in 'bullpen' that is generally far enough away that words spoken at graveside cannot be heard, officials said." Although there seems to be some question as to whether these restrictions were created only because of the Iraq war, "Jack Metzler Jr., the superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, said the cemetery will be following rules that were already in the books but had not been strictly observed in recent years. 'We're just enforcing what was already in place,' he said." I see no reason not to take Metzler at his word. The Washington Post article went on to make a very key point: "News coverage of any funeral at Arlington is allowed only with the family's permission."

So, there were--and had been--rules in place which limited media coverage and intrusion, thus protecting the privacy of the families. Furthermore, these restrictions could be waived if--and only if--a family gave its permission. There is nothing that says these rules do not apply if the President attends a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. In others words, if Bush had ever attended such a funeral, the rules already in place would have kept it from being a media circus. Bush could have helped meet that concern by not informing the media ahead of time that he would be attending the funeral (another thing he could have learned from Rudy Giuliani). The White House could have easily obtained a schedule of burials at Arlington and contacted a family ahead of time to seek permission to attend the burial. If the family granted such permission, the White House surely could have made arrangements to see that the family would not have to immediately face reporters after the ceremony.

Now I know what some of you Bush apologists are thinking. If Bush only went to one funeral, it would show favoritism or neglect toward all the other families, and Bush could not possibly attend every funeral. As I stated in Defense 2 and Defense 6, it is not reasonable to assert that Bush should attend every funeral, I am not arguing that he should, and apparently no one is making that argument. As for showing favoritism or neglect, Bush could have addressed this in a very straightforward manner. He could have said to the press afterwards that given 1) his schedule, and 2) the short term nature of planning funerals, he had not been and would not be able to attend but a few funerals at most. He then could have said that in spite of that fact, he felt it was important to attend a funeral and that he intended for his appearance to pay respect to all that had fallen. Still not happy? Well, he could have sent letters to each family explaining his position--and he could have personally signed them.

Would these steps resolve all concerns and possible criticism? Probably not. Thus, although I would strongly disagree, one could argue that Bush's attendance at a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery would not meet the objective I set out in the second paragraph of this post.

There are, however, other options.

Option 2: a Memorial Service at Arlington National Cemetery

Recall that I have noted throughout this series that Bush has not attended a single funeral or memorial service. A memorial service could meet the objective I set out and avoid many of the potential complications of attending a funeral.

I suggest having a memorial service at Arlington National Cemetery for several reasons. The first is that a memorial service would afford the White House sufficient time to fully plan the ceremony. The second reason is that given its location, this would be the easiest place for the White House to plan a memorial service. The third reason is evidenced by a sign at the entrance of the cemetery which says

Welcome to
Arlington National
Cemetery
Our Nation's Most
Sacred Shrine

(A picture of this sign is here.) What better place to have a memorial service to honor those who have died in the service of our nation? The fourth reason is that Arlington National Cemetery has a facility, the Memorial Amphitheater, specifically designed for such services. According to the official website for the cemetery,

The Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., was dedicated on May 15, 1920. While many ceremonies are conducted throughout the country, many consider the services at Arlington's Memorial Amphitheater to be the nation's official ceremonies to honor all American service members who serve to keep the United States free.

Again, what better place to have a memorial service to honor those who have died in the service of our nation? Another reason why the Memorial Amphitheater is a good site for a memorial service is that there are already rules in place to ensure the dignity and solemnity of such a service. 32 CFR § 553.22 is entitled "Visitors' rules for the Arlington National Cemetery," and it contains rules for memorial services considered to be official ceremonies. Section 553.22(c)(2) defines "official ceremony" as

The term official ceremony means a memorial service or ceremony approved by the Commanding General, Military District of Washington, in which the primary participants are authorized representatives of the United States Government, a state government, a foreign country, or an international organization who are participating in an official capacity.

A memorial service requested by the President would certainly be an "official ceremony." Pursuant to § 553.22(h)(2) and (3)(iii), the White House would have to receive permission from either the Superintendent of the cemetery or the Commanding General. Somehow, I think the President's request to hold a memorial service in the Memorial Amphitheater for those killed in Iraq would be granted. Section 553.22(f)(1) says that "Official ceremonies shall be conducted in accordance with guidance and procedures established by the Commanding General[.]" I have been unable to find any such "guidance and procedures," but it is clear that procedures designed to ensure the dignity of such a service could be instituted. In any event, § 553.22(f) contains rules applicable to all memorial services held in Arlington National Cemetery.

Specifically, no person shall:
(2) Engage in any picketing, demonstration or similar conduct within the Cemetery grounds;
(3) Engage in any orations, speeches, or similar conduct to assembled groups of people, unless the oration is part of a memorial service or ceremony authorized by this section;
(4) Display any placards, banners, flags or similar devices within the Cemetery grounds, unless, in the case of a flag, use of the same is approved by the Superintendent or Commanding General and is part of a memorial service or ceremony authorized by this section;
(5) Distribute any handbill, pamphlet, leaflet, or other written or printed matter within the Cemetery grounds except that a program may be distributed if approved by the Superintendent or Commanding General and such distribution is a part of a memorial service or ceremony authorized by this section;

*******

(10) Play any radio, tape recorder, or musical instrument, or use any loudspeaker within the Cemetery grounds unless use of the same is approved by the Superintendent or Commanding General and is part of a memorial service or ceremony authorized by this section;

*******

(13) Engage in any disorderly conduct within the Cemetery grounds. For purposes of this section, a person shall be guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause, or with knowledge that he is likely to cause, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, he:
(i) Engages in, promotes, instigates, encourages, or aids and abets fighting, or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior;
(ii) Yells, utters loud and boisterous language or makes other unreasonably loud noise;
(iii) Interrupts or disturbs a memorial service or ceremony;
(iv) Utters to any person present abusive, insulting, profane, indecent or otherwise provocative language or gesture that by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(v) Obstructs movement on the streets, sidewalks, or pathways of the Cemetery grounds without prior authorization by competent authority;
(vi) Disobeys a proper request or order by the Superintendent, Cemetery special police, park police, or other competent authority to disperse or to leave the Cemetery grounds; or
(vii) Otherwise creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act not authorized by competent authority.

Also, following the rules for memorial services other than "official ceremonies" would be appropriate. Section 553.22(i) contains the following rules:

(1) Memorial services and ceremonies shall be purely memorial in purpose and dedicated only to the memory of all those interred in the Cemetery, to all those dying in the military service of the United States, to all those dying in the military service of the United States while serving during a particular conflict or while serving in a particular military unit or units, or to the memory of the individual or individuals interred or to be interred at the particular gravesite at which the service or ceremony is held.

(2) Partisan activities are inappropriate in Arlington National Cemetery, due to its role as a shrine to all the honored dead of the Armed Forces of the United States and out of respect for the men and women buried there and for their families. Services or any activities inside the Cemetery connected therewith shall not be partisan in nature. A service is partisan and therefore inappropriate if it includes commentary in support of, or in opposition to, or attempts to influence, any current policy of the Armed Forces, the Government of the United States or any state of the United States; if it espouses the cause of a political party; or if it has as a primary purpose to gain publicity or engender support for any group or cause.

Simply put, either there were already rules in place or the means by which to establish rules which would ensure that any memorial service held at Arlington National Cemetery would not be politicized.

Such a memorial service could also be done in such a way as to not intrude upon the privacy of any family. All the families could be invited to attend, but they would not have to, meaning they would retain the choice of appearing in public and sharing their loss in such a manner.

Such a memorial service would avoid all charges of favoritism or neglect. The service could be expressly for all who had died. Some sort of list could be made that included all their names. No one would be left out. No one person would receive special treatment. Instead, all of our fallen soldiers would receive the special recognition they deserve.

The Memorial Amphitheater is the site for at least three memorial services every year: Easter, Memorial Day, and Veteran's Day. In his 2004 Memorial Day speech, Bush mentioned by name four soldiers who died in Iraq. As I said in Defense 6 regarding Bush's Veteran's Day speech, it is good that he mentioned deaths in Iraq, but both speeches were part of ceremonies that were not solely dedicated to those who died in Iraq. In Defnese 6 I asked why Bush refuses to have a separate service dedicated just to those who died in Iraq. Specifically, I asked three questions:

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?

My answer was and still is "They do deserve all of that, and they deserve it from their Commander-in-Chief." A memorial service at the Memorial Amphitheater would give them all that they deserve.

Option 3: Go to Dover.

Bush could also make a trip to Dover Air Base to be there when some of the coffins arrive. There would be no media coverage due to the Dover ban, meaning there would be no media circus. There would be no privacy concerns because of the media restrictions and the fact that the coffins at that point are anonymous. Because of that anonymity, there would also be little or no chance to claim favoritism or neglect. Any such claims could be miminalized if Bush would make periodic trips to Dover.

On the other hand, the anonymity factor does not satisfy something I feel is important--knowing and publicly acknowledging the names of the fallen. Still, going to Dover would be some public acknowledgment by Bush other than a few lines in a speech. It would be far better than refusing to attend any funeral or memorial service.

Any of the above three options could have been undertaken by Bush. None of them would have required any more effort or planning than his appearances at Camp Lejeune, Fort Stewart, and Fort Carson--or any of his many fund raising appearances. Instead, he has done basically nothing.