A response from a Bush apologist on funerals

I posted this series on another blog of mine, and I actually got a response from a Bush apologist. Here it is:

If the President were to start attending funerals, how would he choose which soldiers were the chosen? Would he stick to the top officials? Would he instead stick with the foot soldiers? Once he had attended one funeral, would he feel the overwhelming need to attend them all?

I believe his decision to respectfully decline funeral invitations is a good one. His attendance would automatically set one soldier as more important than another. Of course, you could say that his attendance would be "symbolic" for all soldiers. Yet, the families will still wonder why he did not choose them. The President has always expressed his sympathy and respect for the noble sacrifices of our men in uniform. His decision to not choose one funeral over another is, I believe, an additional sign of his devotion to our men.

- 4 More Years

This was in response to Defense 5, which, by the way does not address the arguments of this person, but then again, these points are addressed in detail in the series. Also, please note that this "4 More Years" reply does not address any of the issues raised in Defense 5.

My response to this person was concise and brief (hard to believe, huh?), and part of it was the following: Not paying his respects in the most solemn, formal way possible is a sign of devotion? Un-freaking-believable.