State of the Union Address: Bush and funerals revisited

Background

I did not watch the State of the Union Address last night, but I have since read the transcript of the speech and seen some video highlights. I will write some other posts about the speech, but for now I am going to write about the one thing that really jumped out at me personally. Back in October, I wrote a series of posts about the fact that Bush has not attended one funeral or memorial service for any soldier killed in Iraq. Bush and funerals and hugs--what this series says about Bush is a summary of the entire series. In the series, I discuss seven defenses offered as to why Bush has not attended any such services and what Bush could have done and could still do. Here is the summary for one of the "defenses:"

• 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.

I actually got a response from a Bush apologist relevant to this defense:

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.

My response was "Not paying his respects in the most solemn, formal way possible is a sign of devotion? Un-freaking-believable."

Here is the summary of another "defense:"

• 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.

I also posted pictures from Bush's campaign website (here, here, and here) showing that Bush was using the troops for his own political purposes.

The hypocrisy in the speech

With all this in mind, here is the portion of the State of the Union Address that jumped out at me:

And we have said farewell to some very good men and women, who died for our freedom, and whose memory this nation will honor forever.

One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, "When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said, 'You've done your job, Mom. Now it is my turn to protect you.'" Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood.

Allow me to make something perfectly clear. As a general proposition, I do not think it was wrong for Bush to do this. I have no problem with the Norwoods being honored in this way. Their son deserved that, and they deserved it. However, what really pisses me off is the abject hypocrisy Bush's actions reveal.

White House staffers and apologists have said that Bush will not attend a funeral or discuss specific deaths because that would show favoritism, that would elevate or diminish one death, and that families not chosen would "still wonder why he did not choose them." Yet in the State of the Union Address, he did discuss one specific death. He did single out one death among the over 1400. He did exactly what he said he would not do.

And he did so on the biggest stage possible--the State of the Union Address. An article in today's New York Times discusses the interaction between the Norwoods and another guest at the speech, a woman named Safia Taleb al-Suhail, who had just voted in Baghdad in Sunday's election.

But everyone was caught off guard, and the House of Representatives suddenly turned into a bath of emotion, when Mr. Bush introduced the Norwoods.

Ms. Suhail turned to Mrs. Norwood, who was sitting right behind her, and enveloped her in a hard, long hug. The collective eyes of the chamber watered while the president stood ramrod straight, jaw clenched, and watched during one of the longer and louder standing ovations at recent State of the Union addresses.

This was a moving moment. It was genuine and remarkable. However, it took place not at a funeral or memorial service but on national TV during an event that necessarily had the attention of much of the American public. In other words, it took place in a way that produced a tremendous amount of emotion that resulted in a political benefit for Bush. The White House has complained about Clinton using public moments to generate emotion for political purposes, but Clinton never did anything on this scale. Given the White House's penchant and express desire to produce bold, dramatic statements (check out the "White House media magicians" section of George's Aircraft Carrier Carnival), I cannot believe that having the Norwoods at the speech and introducing them was not specifically intended to elicit such emotion. In other words, I believe that the White House intentionally exploited this moment.

Conclusion

In general, I do not have a problem with the Norwoods being singled out. I do not even have a problem with the exploitation factor. However, when such actions directly and blatantly go against excuses given by the White House for Bush's refusal to honor our fallen in the most solemn, meaningful way, it really angers me. I repeat part of my conclusion to Bush and funerals and hugs--what this series says about Bush:

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.

If Bush can do what he did with the Norwoods, why can he not go to even one funeral or memorial service? Why does he refuse to do so?