More on Bush and Giuliani and Al Qaqaa

All you Bush apologists out there always talk about how Bush is a "strong leader." This business with Al Qaqaa and Giuliani proves just how wrong you are.

Let's assume that Giuliani was not speaking for Bush when he blamed the troops for the missing explosives. This means that Bush cannot control even one person working for him. This means that Bush cannot control even one person on such an important issue. That is not leadership, folks. That is a complete lack of leadership.

See, the President has to lead a lot of people. If he cannot lead even one person who is supposed to be working for him, how can anyone expect to lead a lot of people? More to the point, how can anyone claim that he is in fact a great leader?

Also, given that the President is the Commander-in-Chief, a group of the people he must lead is the military. Let's assume once again that Giuliani was not speaking for Bush when he blamed the troops. How can Bush be a strong leader for the military when NOTHING is done to say Giuliani was wrong or to rebuke Giuliani in any way? Furthermore, if--as I argued in the previous post--"there is no way to credibly argue that Giuliani's statement cannot be attributed to Bush," how can Bush be a strong leader when he blames the very people he is supposed to be leading? Again, I turn to Wes Clark for analysis of Bush:

For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly.

The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.

President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes.

As I explained in detail in Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period, the President and the Secretary of Defense (the "civilian leaders" mentioned by Clark), are indeed responsible for plans and objectives. By allowing the troops to be blamed, Bush is not accepting the responsibility that belongs to him, not the troops.

That ain't leadership, boys and girls. And anybody who claims otherwise is flat out wrong.

George W. Bush is not a strong leader, and anybody who claims otherwise is flat out wrong.

Al Qaqaa: great example of Bush's bullshit

Just as I was getting back to Wolfowitless and his reasons why post-war Iraq would not need several hundred thousand troops, along comes an example of why Wolfowitz was and is full of shit. That example is the Al Qaqaa facility and its now missing tons of high explosives.

For a comprehensive analysis of all the stories as they broke (and continue to break as of today), go to Josh Marshall's site, www.talkingpointsmemo.com. He has been all over this issue.

I will go into much more detail on this issue, but for now I will focus on flip-flopping and just how full of shit BushCo is.

How dare YOU blame the troops.

Let's start with good ol' George. The New York Times broke the story on October 25, and for two days Bush refused to answer any questions on the matter. On October 27, in a campaign speech at Lititz, Pennsylvania, Bush finally said something about the missing explosives:

Now, the Senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy advisor admits -- quote -- "We do not know the facts." Think about that. The Senator is denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts.

So, according to Bush, Kerry is blaming the troops, and that's very bad. How dare Kerry do such a thing? For starters, Kerry has never said anything to that effect, but that will be shown in subsequent posts. Right now, I just want to point out that Bush accused Kerry of blaming the troops for the missing explosives. This is significant because the very next morning, Bush's #1 surrogate on the campaign trail, Rudy Giuliani, was asked about the missing explosives in an interview on NBC's Today, and here's what he had to say:

No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough or didn't they search carefully enough? We don't know.

I am SO confused. Bush says blaming the troops is bad, but Bush's top campaigner says that no matter what, the troops are to blame.

You know, I am not even going to try to come up with some witty comment for this. I am so sick and tired of the changing bullshit that comes from Bush and his supporters. Bush talks about how Kerry is on all sides of an issue, and then we get this crap?

Giuliani ≠ Bush is a non-starter

Now I know what some you Republicans are thinking...Bush did not say the troops were to blame, and it's unfair to attribute Giuliani's comment to Bush. Give me a break. Try to argue that Giuliani has not been the top campaigner and surrogate for Bush--and don't forget that he was the key-freakin'-note speaker at the Republican Convention. Whatever "America's Mayor" says on the campaign trail is the same as if George his own self said it. If that were not the case, don't you think someone from the Bush/Cheney campaign would have issued a statement to that effect? I checked the Bush/Cheney campaign site and found absolutely no mention of Giuliani's comments. I checked the "Current News" page on the White House website and found that neither Bush nor Cheney had said anything about Giuliani's comments. Then I checked the "Press Briefings" page and found the only statement on October 28 or 29 from anyone at the White House or the Bush/Cheney campaign regarding Giuliani's allocation of blame. It came from Scott McClellan during a press gaggle on October 28:

Q: Can I ask you about Rudy Giuliani, as you know, was on the "Today Show" this morning, and he said, no matter how you try to blame it on the President, the actual responsibility for it, meaning the weapons that went missing, really would be for the troops that were there -- did they search carefully enough -- did they search carefully enough? Does the President support Rudy Giuliani placing this blame on the troops?

MR. McCLELLAN: He's talking about how we don't know the facts, we don't know what happened to these explosives. We know that we have seized and destroyed more than 400,000 munitions from some 10,000 caches spread all throughout Iraq. But when you look at the regime and you look at the way they operate, it is a likely possibility that they were removed prior to our forces arriving there. We don't know -- Senator Kerry shows that he will say anything for his own political advantage. And I think this goes to an issue that the American people will be looking at very closely. And that's, who can you trust to lead this nation forward on the big priorities? A President can't jump to conclusions without knowing the facts.

This is the entirety of what the Bush administration/campaign has had to say about Giuliani's statements. Notice four points: 1) McClellan was asked point blank if Bush supported Giuliani's statement of blame; 2) his answer was basically an attempt to explain what Giuliani was talking about; 3) he did not, however, even mention--much less explain--the part about blaming the troops; and 4) he never answered the point blank question. It would have been so simple to say "The President does not blame the troops," but nothing of the sort was said.

Compare this to what Wes Clark did during his campaign. At a rally, Michael Moore called Bush a deserter, and the press was all over Clark, claiming that he essentially took that position because he did not rebuke Moore. At one of the Democratic debates Clark said 1) he had not looked at all the facts and did not consider the matter relevant, and 2) Moore had a right to express his opinion. Neither Bush nor any of his representatives have done anything like that.

Bush, through McClellan, had the chance to say that he did not agree with Giuliani, and nothing was said. Again, if Giuliani was not speaking for Bush on this matter, why has nothing been done to make that clear? Without any such effort, there is no way to credibly argue that Giuliani's statement cannot be attributed to Bush.

Bottom line

Bush and his lackeys have said all along that opposition to this war is the same as not supporting the troops. Then Bush says that Kerry is blaming the troops for the missing explosives. And then we get the Bush campaign saying that the blame for the missing explosives lies with the troops. It's like Jon Stewart said: "Finally--someone who supports the war AND blames the troops...Seriously, I think my brain is broken."

Cheer up, Jon. Your brain can recover. I don't think the brains of Bush or anyone working for him can be helped.

Wes Clark sums up Bush

General Wesley Clark released the following statement today in response to President Bush's remarks today about the missing explosives in Iraq:

Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief."

President Bush couldn't be more right. He jumped to conclusions about any connection between Saddam Hussein and 911. He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction. He jumped to conclusions about the mission being accomplished. He jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace. And because he jumped to conclusions, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq may very well have their hands on powerful explosives to attack our troops, we are stuck in Iraq without a plan to win the peace, and Americans are less safe both at home and abroad.

By doing all these things, he broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down. George W. Bush is unfit to be our Commander in Chief.

And yes, I supported and campaigned for Clark. Now you know.

RED SOX WIN!!!

RED SOX WIN!

RED SOX WIN!!

RED SOX WIN!!!

The Curse is dead.

Rejoice Red Sox Nation!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Hicks--a Texas original

I just finished watching a show entitled "Outlaw Comic: Bill Hicks."

You are missed, Bill. If you were still in this plane of existence, the right wingers would hate you more than Michael Moore. Oh, how I wish you were here.

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.

World Series time!

Well, I almost had my dream World Series, but the Cardinals just won Game 7. I'm still mighty proud of the Astros. If they had to lose to anybody, I'm glad it was the Cardinals. What a great team and a classy organization.

That being said...GO RED SOX!

At least now I don't have to feel conflicted in the World Series. I started watching baseball in the summer of 1967, and quickly chose the Astros as my favorite team since they were the only team in Texas at the time. Then came the 1967 World Series--a classic between...the Cardinals and the Red Sox. As I watched that Series, I thought Carl Yastrzemski was the coolest guy on the planet, and the Red Sox have been my favorite team in the American League and a very close second overall ever since.

That 1967 Series was my first experience as a Red Sox fan. Anyone who has ever been a Red Sox fan knows what I mean. Then came another of the greatest World Series of all time in 1975. The second huge hanging curveball Bill Lee threw to Tony Perez still haunts me. 1978--Bucky F_____ Dent. 1986 we will not speak of. And then last year's game 7...

I considered not saying anything about the Red Sox because I didn't want to get my hopes up. Cruel fate might once again be patiently waiting, watching in the dark for just the right moment to rip out the hearts of Red Sox Nation, but you know what? Even if that happens, it will never, ever change the fact that for the first time in history, a team that was down 0-3 in a series won the series, and the team that was the first in history to lose a 3-0 lead is the Yankees, and the team that put the Yankees in the record book as the biggest collapse in baseball playoff history is the Red Sox.

Sorry, Yankees fans. Feel our pain.

GO RED SOX!

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.

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.

Now wouldn't this be an appropriate site for a memorial service? 

Bush and hugs and funerals--Defense 7

Defense 7: Protect the privacy of the families

This will be the last defense I examine, and of all the defenses, this one makes the most sense to me. It is also the only defense which cannot be thoroughly thrashed. So why did I save this defense for last? Why would I end on my weakest point? There are two reasons: 1) this is not the end of this series, and 2) this defense leads nicely into showing how easily Bush could have done something to publicly acknowledge the deaths in Iraq and honor the fallen. That will be the subject of the last post in this series.

The privacy of families should be considered.

Obviously, any event attended by the President will receive a great deal of attention. Also, some families would prefer not to have any outsiders participate in something as intimate as a funeral or memorial service.

In Defense 6, I mentioned that privacy of the families was/is the primary reason given for the Dover ban. The privacy issue as it relates to the Dover ban needs to be examined in order to put the privacy issue and funerals into context.

The Dover ban and privacy (part 1)

On one hand, privacy of the families seems not to be a real issue because the coffins arriving at Dover are basically anonymous, meaning that they all are draped with flags and at that point there is no way to identify any coffin as containing a specific individual. In other words, no family would be able to know if their loved one was in one of the coffins. If this was the only consideration, privacy would seem to be a non-issue.

However, that is not the only consideration. I found many other expressions of perspectives I had not realized. I am going to reproduce some of those expressions, and later I will reiterate portions which show a theme that supports my view, as stated in Defense 6, that "the arrival of the remains is not the same as a funeral or memorial service." With that in mind, I begin with an explanation from an officer at Dover in an article on Newsweek.com:

“It’s out of respect for the families,” explains Dover’s Lt. Olivia Nelson. Even though none of the bodies are identified, letting the media in would not show the proper reverence for the dead. Plus, she explains, Dover is just a way station. The transfer is not ceremonial—even though an honor guard carries the body and a flag is draped over the container. Nelson argues that if the media were to show the offloading of remains it would create pressure on the families to be there when the body arrives rather than await delivery in the privacy of their homes.

I had not considered this before, and even though I was not fully convinced, I felt Lt. Nelson's points were valid. Then I found statements from other people that echoed Lt. Nelson. John M. Molino, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, wrote an editorial for USA Today which eloquently supported the Dover ban.

It is both the great honor and the solemn responsibility of the U.S. Department of Defense to comfort and protect, to the maximum extent possible, the privacy of the families of the fallen, and to do everything possible to ensure the utmost reverence and respect for those who laid their lives on the altar of our country.

That, and that alone, is the reason for the policy that disallows media coverage of the arrival of military caskets at the Dover, Del., Air Force Base. It has the only active military mortuary in the continental United States, and it is one of the last stops on the journey that carries our heroes home.

Despite notions to the contrary, Dover is not a place where military honors are rendered. That is reserved for the gravesite. Dover's sole focus is to identify and expedite the remains to the families so they can properly lay their loved ones to rest.

Public coverage of arrivals would almost certainly make some families feel obliged to journey to Dover, perhaps over great distances and at considerable expense. Others may not desire media coverage, or find themselves upset by a public display of their loved one.

The current policy places the decision for the media coverage of the deceased where it belongs: in the hands of the families who have the right — as they should have — to grant or deny media access to funeral or memorial services. This has been the policy of our nation for more than 13 years, through several administrations. It reflects the wishes of the families, who are consulted on an ongoing basis, and it has been upheld by the courts, including on appeal.

(emphasis added). Again, these all seem to be valid points. The last statements in this regard I will highlight came from John Cole, a man I criticized harshly in Defense 1.

I agree- the costs of war should be transparent. The media can take all the pictures they want- AFTER the remains have been delivered to the families. That is the point of the policy- to maintain the dignity and honor of the soldier, sailor, airman, and marine until his remains have been delivered to his/her family.

*******

My main concern is that people who have been alerted that their loved ones have been killed will be subjected to numerous photographs of coffins on the news and in the newspapers, and each time, having to wonder if that is their loved one on the way home. I think that is an indecent act that need not b e perpetrated on those who have already lost a great deal, and should be avoided at all costs.

I think it needs to be stated again that there is no ban on filming military funerals, and that it is only when the bodies are in transit that this 'ban' takes place. This is not censorship- this is a last act of decency to attempt to maintain the dignity of our fallen heroes.

*******

Maybe I am particularly sensitive about this because people who are in the military and were in the military behave like a big fraternity.

At any rate, I would not want my mother to receive notice that I had been killed in action, then every day have to open up the newspaper to see flag draped coffins on the front page, and sit there wondering, "Is that my son."

This is not a question of censorship, avoiding the real costs of war. This is an issue of providing some dignity and not further damaging those who have lost loved ones.

As I said- I have no problem with media coverage of military funerals- I just firmly believe that coverage should be restrained until our deceased heroes are reunited with their loved ones.

As easy as I found it to take issue with what Cole said about the historical defense, I find it equally difficult to argue against his views on the Dover ban.

Even so, there are other views to the contrary. In Defense 6, I mentioned the April 29, 2004 editorial from the Washington Times. Here is the next to last paragraph from that editorial:

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.

The last paragraph of the editorial contained the opinion of a mother of a fallen soldier:

Molly Morel, the mother of Marine Capt. Brent Morel of Bartlett, Tenn., killed in Iraq on April 7, said it all. "I don't want to see bodies coming home, either," she told her hometown newspaper, the Memphis Commercial Appeal. "But it comforted me to know they were treated with the honor they deserve. The American people have short memories, and I don't want my son to be an obituary on the back page. My son died for America."

Here is a parent of one of the fallen who feels that coverage of coffins arriving at Dover does not violate her privacy, but rather honors her son. Other parents share this feeling. The first photos from Dover were published first by the Seattle Times, and the father of an Army soldier killed in Iraq wrote a letter to the paper about the photos. Here are some excerpts:

I read with great interest your article regarding the woman who was fired for taking the pictures of the flag-draped coffins on 4/7/04. My son, SSG Michael W. Mitchell, was killed on 4/4/04 in the first day of the Shiite uprising in Sadr City. He was one of eight soldiers killed that day in that attack. I am quite positive that he was inside one of those coffins in the picture.

I am happy that you ran the story and showed the picture. I would like everyone to know the devastation that this event has brought upon Mike's family and friends. In fact, Mike's grandpa at 86 says that this is the worst thing that has happened in his entire life -- that says a lot right there!!!

Hiding the death and destruction of this war does not make it easier on anyone except those who want to keep the truth away from the people...

*******

Things are getting worse in Iraq and if there is anything that I can do so that other parents can be spared the pain that is happening in my life, I will do it.

In fact, I would be willing to furnish you a picture of my son in his casket if you would like to run it in your paper. Sort of a follow-up story that would just take it one step further than the picture shown inside the airplane with a bunch of anonymous flag-draped coffins...

Clearly, Bill Mitchell felt no invasion of his privacy from the photos. Jeannine Guttman of the Portland Press Herald surveyed readers of the paper for their opinions of the Dover ban. Some of the opinions supported the ban, but most did not, including that of this father:

Jim Mackell of Arundel: "I am a father who has a son currently serving in the Army in Iraq. He is on his second tour of duty there. Almost every day the thought passes through my mind that this could be the day something happens to him. The random mortar round, the odd RPG, a stray round from one of the millions of AK-47s that litter the country like pine needles in Maine. I was never concerned about winning the war, but I've always been concerned about winning (or losing) the peace.

"It's my opinion that the arrival of our dead at Dover should be covered as a news event. These men and women have died in the service of our country. If the publicity changes our actions in some way, then our actions weren't well justified. I tend to agree with Sen. McCain, 'We ought to know the casualties of war.'

"There were several articles approximately one month ago when unauthorized photos were published of the coffins being loaded in Iraq. A contractor's photo (first published in The Seattle Times) showed the coffins being draped with the U.S. flag and the care and reverence that was being used. That's important to me. To know that their sacrifice is being recognized."

There are other opinions stated in the Portland Post Herald piece that are worth reading, but Jim Mackell is the one person therein with a family member serving in Iraq, making his the one opinion which deals with the privacy of the families issue, which is the focus of this post.

All the foregoing opinions show that the issue of privacy of the families and the Dover ban is unresolved--and probably always will be. Personally, although I disagree with the ban, I have no great objection to it, primarily because I feel that "the arrival of the remains is not the same as a funeral or memorial service."

The Dover ban and privacy (part 2)

Now I will go back to the statements in support of the Dover ban and show the theme I alluded to earlier.

From Lt. Nelson: Plus, she explains, Dover is just a way station. The transfer is not ceremonial—even though an honor guard carries the body and a flag is draped over the container.

From John M. Molino: Despite notions to the contrary, Dover is not a place where military honors are rendered. That is reserved for the gravesite. Dover's sole focus is to identify and expedite the remains to the families so they can properly lay their loved ones to rest.

*******

The current policy places the decision for the media coverage of the deceased where it belongs: in the hands of the families who have the right — as they should have — to grant or deny media access to funeral or memorial services.

From John Cole: The media can take all the pictures they want- AFTER the remains have been delivered to the families. That is the point of the policy- to maintain the dignity and honor of the soldier, sailor, airman, and marine until his remains have been delivered to his/her family.

*******

I think it needs to be stated again that there is no ban on filming military funerals, and that it is only when the bodies are in transit that this 'ban' takes place.

*******

As I said- I have no problem with media coverage of military funerals- I just firmly believe that coverage should be restrained until our deceased heroes are reunited with their loved ones.

So what is the theme? The theme is that funerals and memorials are special. Funerals and memorials are especially meaningful. Still need convincing? Dana Milbank of the Washington Post got the following explanation of the Dover ban:

One official said only individual graveside services, open to cameras at the discretion of relatives, give "the full context" of a soldier's sacrifice. "To do it at several stops along the way doesn't tell the full story and isn't representative," the official said.

And finally, I cite once again this official description from the Department of Defense:

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.

Funerals and privacy

The special nature of funerals makes the privacy concerns even greater. A man named Ron Griffin had a 20-year old son named Kyle who was killed in Iraq. He called into Steve Malzberg's New York radio talk show, and Malzberg wrote about their conversation. Griffin feels that Bush is doing the right thing by not going to any funerals, and although I strongly disagree, he said all that needs to be said about funerals and privacy:

And then there is the possibility of turning the funerals into a media event. "If he would have showed up at my son's funeral, there would not have been any room at the church. So who gets kicked out?" Griffin wondered. "One of my son's friends?"

Griffin says: "Bush is doing absolutely the right thing. We don't want a media circus. It would take away from everything the day was. It was a celebration of my son's life."

All of Griffin's concern are real, and they must be addressed. But does that mean they cannot be addressed? Does that mean that Bush has to refuse to go to all funerals in order to preserve the privacy of all families who lose loved ones in Iraq? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "No," and the final post in this series will examine how all the relevant interests can be balanced.

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.

Bush and funerals and hugs--Defense 5

Defense 5: Going to funerals would help the terrorists

The Republicans' favorite game is "blame it on Clinton," but now a close second is "________ will help the terrorists" (followed by "Why do you hate freedom?"). This spectacularly dazzling piece of bullshit was championed by conservative writer Andrew Sullivan in a December 2, 2003, column for The New Republic. His opening paragraph says

There's a growing anti-Bush meme...that holds that president Bush is a heartless chicken-hawk who wages war recklessly and cares not a whit for the welfare of the soldiers under his command. The evidence? That he hasn't attended any military funerals related to the Iraq war. This particular indictment works rhetorically because it manages to sum up a criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy while adding the extra ingredient of damning Bush personally. (Indeed, one blogger has documented the meme's increased popularity on antiwar websites.) But it also happens to defy logic, not to mention a basic understanding of history.

First of all, Sullivan makes it sound like the only evidence that Bush wages war recklessly and does not care for the welfare of soldiers is his failure to attend any funerals. I have news for Andrew and everybody else: there is a shitload of such evidence (actually, Sullivan has started to recognize this fact). However, that is not the subject of this post. Second, “this particular indictment” of Bush is based on basic human nature AND the words of George his ownself, as we shall soon see. Back to Sullivan’s column...He addressed the rule on not photographing coffins as they arrived at Dover Air Force Base (which will be discussed in the post on Defense 7). While that rule is related to the funeral issue, it does not explain why Bush has not attended any funerals or memorial services. However, for Sullivan, it does provide a justification for Bush’s absence:

And there's a particularly good reason for this ruling at this moment in time. When you're at war with a guerrilla enemy that has no ability to defeat the U.S. militarily, the war takes on a different form. The goal of the Baathists in Iraq is not to remove the coalition forces by military means, but to so weaken Western morale that the American and British publics decide to throw in the towel. A critical part of the enemy's calculation is the lesson it took from Beirut and Somalia: that the American public cannot tolerate any casualties. So broadcasting every funeral plays directly into the hands of the Baathists. It's what they want. Why does it honor soldiers killed by these thugs to give the enemy an easy propaganda victory?

But when the government has control over a particular event, such as the return of military coffins, it has no obligation to offer up coverage that will only serve to buttress the enemy, and potentially weaken U.S. morale. This is a war. Morale matters. No government intent on winning would seek to make the enormously difficult task in Iraq even harder.

Let me get this straight...we must not see the coffins and Bush cannot go to any funerals because otherwise we would weaken ourselves, make the task even harder, and give our enemies a victory. This is a big steaming pile of crap. Sullivan apparently decided that Americans are not tough enough to handle hardship. What he fails to understand is that Americans are willing to suffer, willing to pay a steep price, IF THE CAUSE IS JUST. As explained by Dr. Joseph Dawson, a military historian at Texas A&M University (home of the George H.W. Bush Library, by the way),

the American public's response to casualties is qualified by what they believe the soldiers are fighting for. "If the cause seems significant enough then Americans will bear the loss," he says, pointing to the huge death tolls in the second world war and the civil war. "But if the cause no longer appears to be significant they will not.

Sullivan next quoted a column from conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer:

That is the enemy's entire war objective: to inflict pain. And that is why it would be a strategic error to amplify and broadcast that pain by making great public shows of sorrow presided over by the President himself. In the midst of an ongoing war, a guerrilla war, a war that will be won and lost as a contest of wills, the Commander in Chief--despite what he feels in his heart--must not permit himself to show that he bleeds. He is required to show, yes, a certain callousness. He must appear that way to the insurgents, who will otherwise be encouraged to think their strategy is succeeding and therefore have yet more incentive to keep killing Americans until it does. And he must appear that way to ordinary Iraqis, who will not help us in this fight unless they are sure that the pain of our losses will not drive us out and leave them to the tender mercies of the Saddamites.

Sullivan then wrote "That is the war of will that we are currently waging. It is a war in which the president cannot afford to blink." This is an even bigger steaming pile of crap. Before explaining why, I first point out that by the time of Sullivan’s and Krauthammer’s articles (early December 2003), Iraq was being referred to as a “guerrilla war.” Back on June 30, 2003, when asked if there was a guerrilla war in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld said, “I guess the reason I don't use the phrase "guerrilla war" is because there isn't one, and it would be a misunderstanding and a miscommunication to you and to the people of the country and the world.” Two weeks later he was already backpedaling. In an interview on ABC, after describing the situation in Iraq, he was asked, “[I]sn’t that guerrilla war?” to which Rummy replied, “I don't know. Call it what you want, what we've got, really, on the ground in Iraq is a mixture of things.” Rummy’s confusion went away two days later when Gen. John Abizaid (the commander in Iraq) said that the various insurgents were “conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us,” and “And I think describing it as guerrilla tactics being employed against us is, you know, a proper thing to describe in strictly military terms.” So from April to July, the Bush administration insisted there was not a guerrilla war going on because that would make Iraq seem like Vietnam, but once there was no way to deny the existence of a guerrilla war, that became a reason why we, the American people, could not get news about those who died in Iraq and why Bush could not attend any funerals or memorial services. What a bunch of duplicitous bastards.

Now, back to Sullivan and Krauthammer. From their analytical tour de farce three arguments emerge.

1. By not going to even one funeral or memorial, Bush is winning the "war of will" crucial to winning this guerrilla war.

First of all, although both Krauthammer and Sullivan are highly educated, distinguished writers and commentators, neither of them have served in the military, they do not have any apparent expertise in guerrilla warfare, and they cite no authorities on guerrilla warfare, meaning that their proclamations on what is needed to win this guerrilla war do not exactly reek of credibility. I suggest checking out "Why We Can't Win," an article by Al Lorentz, a 20-year Army Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Iraq. See what he says about fighting a guerrilla war and see if you then think this guerrilla war depends on a "war of will." (Lorentz's views are discussed in A true patriot that needs support.)

Second, their reasoning defies historical reality. Keep in mind that 1) Bush and his supporters keep talking about how Iraq is a crucial part of the war on terror, and 2) our enemies in Iraq are largely Arab. Let's see...where else are there Arab terrorists? Well, one answer is Israel. There is no country on earth that has done more to show and maintain its will in opposition to Arab terrorists. And last time I checked, that war has been raging for year after year after year. The Arab groups fighting against Israel have not gone away. They face a country with vastly superior resources and one of the best militaries in the world, and yet they still keep fighting. If Israel's history and present is any indication (and how can Bush supporters argue otherwise given the Bush administration's position that a democratic Iraq will eventually bring peace to Israel?), a mere exertion of will--or more to the point, refusing "to show that [Bush] bleeds" by not attending a funeral--is not going to end the war in Iraq.

Krauthammer and Sullivan also ignore centuries of Iraqi and Arab history. I am not going to get into that here, but suffice it to say that from what I know of history (going all the way back to the Crusades), our enemies in Iraq are not going to back down because we show and exert our will. Their culture is different. The way they see the world is different--they don't necessarily adhere to the rigid Western linear way of analysis and action. Winning a war under these circumstances is going to take much more than mere will and "staying the course." Failure to recognize this is naive, arrogant, and stupid all at the same time.

2. Bush cannot publicly show sorrow because that would encourage our enemies and weaken the morale of Americans.

I'm confused. According to Krauthammer and Sullivan, Americans' morale depends on how our enemies in Iraq interpret Bush's actions. Doesn't it make more sense that our morale depends on how we interpret Bush's actions? Let me put this in a way that Republicans can understand: if we let our morale be weakened by what the terrorists think about us, then the terrorists have won! Why, oh why do Krauthammer and Sullivan hate freedom? WHY?

Seriously, their argument defies logic. According to these genuises, in order to keep our morale high, Bush has to focus on what people in Iraq think about him and disregard what "We, the People of the United States" think about him.

And another thing...whose morale is the most important? Is the morale of the American public the most important? Or maybe--just maybe--the morale of the people whose lives are on the line in Iraq every day is most important. And yet the focus of Krauthammer and Sullivan is on the American public--you know, the voters. Looks like Bush and GOP officials are not the only ones who concentrate on voters' perceptions rather than taking care of the troops.

3. Bush should not attend even one funeral or memorial service because that would weaken our morale.

My response to this argument really gets to the core of why Bush's failure--and refusal--to attend even one funeral or memorial service is appalling.

Rituals have meaning, and some rituals are particularly significant. Funerals are in that category. A funeral is an extremely powerful and meaningful event. It has an impact on both the family of the deceased and those attending the funeral. Here are some examples from my experiences. In my teens one of my best friends was a girl I went to junior high and high school with. Our families also attended the same church. Although we went to different colleges, we remained close. After college, we got wrapped up in our separate lives. We remained on good terms and in touch, but the contact lessened. Before June of this year, the last time I had seen or spoken with her was just before Christmas 2000. In June, her mother passed away after a long struggle. I went to the funeral. As the family walked in, she saw me and mouthed "Thanks for being here." We talked after the graveside ceremony, and she let me know how much it meant to her that I was there. I felt the same way about friends who attended my mother's funeral on September 15, 2001 (she died on 9-11). Just knowing that they were physically present at that time and place provided me a sense of comfort. By attending a funeral service--by making the effort to actually be present at the service--people provide comfort in way that is qualitatively different from other expressions of support. To put this in the context of Krauthammer and Sullivan's argument, by attending a funeral, a person can improve, not weaken, the morale of a person who directly suffered the loss of a loved one.

Moreover, the people attending the funeral also receive a benefit. A funeral is not just an exercise in grief. For me, it is a time and a place to experience the deceased's life and realize the gifts that that life bestowed on me and others. It is a time and place to realize the precious and fleeting nature of this life and therefore resolve to truly live. It is a time and a place to experience the grace of comfort, the easing of the pain of a loss. As a Christian, I feel it is a time and a place to experience the knowledge that the end of existence in this world is in fact not death. So, a person can improve his or her own morale by attending a funeral.

I have also experienced these things as part of a group, meaning that everyone who attends a funeral can have their morale strengthened as a group. Indeed, there is evidence of this:

Something profound often happens when a community loses someone to war, said Daniel Monti, a professor of sociology at Boston University who has studied the experiences of South Boston, which he said lost an unusually large number of men in the Vietnam War.

They don't just memorialize the dead, he said. They also take that time to think about themselves and their home and what is most important. "It reinforces the best qualities they see in themselves and their neighborhoods," Monti said. After all the anger, tears and questions, the memorials can pull people together, elevate, strengthen.

Thus, the funeral of a person killed in war can have a very positive effect on a community. In other words, all the effects described by Monti sure seem to build morale.

But what do I know? I am not an elected official or a public leader. Still, there are some leaders who have spoken about the need to attend funerals. Wesley Clark was a four-star general who led and ordered troops into battle. Regarding military funerals, Clark said, "I've been to those funerals. I've comforted families. ... I don't think you can make good policy at the top if you don't understand the impact at the bottom of your organization." Clark also said, "Part of being a leader is facing the consequences of your actions, no matter how hard or painful that is. President Bush owes more to the families of our soldiers. They should not be mourning alone." Now I know you Republicans will disregard Clark's views--even though he is a decorated combat veteran who was also NATO Supreme Allied Commander--because, after all, he was a Democratic candidate for President. Well, you might be more inclined to give credence to a prominent Republican who is one of Bush's biggest supporters.

After 9-11, the then mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, made the decision to attend as many funerals of fallen police and firemen as possible. In fact, he made it a priority. On October 6, 2001, CNN published this report about Giuliani:

After attending another round of funerals and memorial services Saturday, Mayor Rudy Giuliani apologized to the families of those uniformed service workers who died in the line of duty whose services he has missed.

"I think every one of these men should have the mayor, the fire commissioner, the police commissioner present for their burial service," he said.

*******

The mayor, who has attended dozens of services since the September 11 attacks that toppled the World Trade Center's twin towers, said he leaves them with more energy than he had when he showed up.

"Particularly in a small village setting, when you see thousands and thousands of people turn out, it's very inspiring ... and gives you strength."

Gee, in addition to Giuliani saying in effect that a fallen soldier deserves a top leader at his funeral, it appears that Giuliani's morale was strengthened by attending funerals.

And, clearly, Giuliani felt attending these funerals was very important. He has since explained why he felt--and still feels--that way. On July 19, 2003, Giuliani spoke to the American Veterinary Medical Association about his personal principles of leadership.

As a final bit of advice, Giuliani said leaders have to love people. A rule of thumb is, "Weddings are discretionary, funerals necessary," meaning leaders must help people when they're hurting.

By saying this, Giuliani acknowledges that a funeral is a uniquely significant and meaningful ceremony. He reiterated his views in early October 2003 before the 2003 Global Leadership Conference, where he said

My philosophy: Weddings discretionary; funerals mandatory. It's more important to go to funerals than to weddings. You need to be there for people when things go wrong.

And on January 29, 2004, he was the keynote speaker at the annual dinner of the Greater Des Moines Partnership:

Giuliani's closing advice was from his father: "My father always said weddings are discretionary, funerals are necessary." As a leader, he said, "you must go to people's funerals. You have to be there when they need you."

Guiliani considers it the duty of a leader to attend the funerals of people under his command--people who, at the leader's behest, risk their lives for the greater good.

It seems that George W. Bush--in spite of what he has said--does not feel the same way. Well, at least he is not letting the terrorists win.