Bush and funerals revisited

Back on September 15, I heard Keith Olbermann's commentary on 9-11 (transcript here and video here--under "Keith Olbermann's Special Commentaries") for the first time. Although Olbermann's commentary was on 9-11, it reminded me of another way in which Bush has failed this country. More specifically, it reminded me of how Bush has not just failed, but refused to honor those who have died in the service of this country, in a war that he ordered.

That prompted me to read what I had written about this topic, and then, about this time last night, I came across this article which ran in today's Washington Post. The article discussed how Bush deals with the loss of soldiers in Iraq.

For anyone [and I know there is at least one ;-) ] who thinks I got little fired up in Well, Mr. President, here's what I think..., look out, because this topic really gets me riled up.

Back in October 2004, I wrote a series about Bush not attending even one military or memorial service for anyone military personnel killed in Iraq. Anyone wanting to read the entire series can find the links at the Cosmic Wheel Index. Go the the main heading of "Bush, George W." and then the sub-heading of "Funerals and honoring the fallen." If you want to read the whole series, first read this post, which is a synopsis (with links).

When I wrote the series in October 2004, Bush had not attended one funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq. Occasionally, I have revisited the matter since then, and I have always stated that, to my knowledge, Bush still had not attended one funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq. And then I read this from the Washington Post article bearing today's date:

While he pays tribute to those who have fallen, the president strives to show resolve and avoid displays that might be seen as weak or doubting. His refusal to attend military funerals, while taking long Texas vacations and extended bicycle rides, strikes some critics as callous indifference.

*******

Aides say that Bush does not attend military funerals because the presidential entourage would disrupt solemn events...

So, I can now say that to this day, Bush still has not attended one funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq. AND he still refuses to do so.

And I still say "un-freaking-believable."

The Washington Post article showed that the Bush apologists are still offering some of the same defenses as in October 2004. For instance, the desire not to disrupt solemn events was addressed in Defense 7: Protect the privacy of the families. The article also focused on how Bush meets privately with families and writes letters to them. Well, if you want some details on that, read Defense 3: Bush writes letters and visits with families. Two things have changed since I wrote that post. First, as described in the Washington Post article, Bush met with a widow who was definitely anti-Bush, meaning that now not every family is vetted to make sure they support Bush. Second, since October 2004, there is a far greater number of families with whom Bush has not met. As detailed in Defense 3, as of October 11, 2004, there had been 437 military deaths in Iraq, and Bush had met with the families of 43 of them. That's 9.8%. That means that Bush had not met with 395 families. According to this site, to date there have been 2703 military deaths in Iraq, and the Washington Post article says that Bush has met with the families of 336 of those soldiers. That means there are 2367 families with whom he has not met. I guess I should give him credit for increasing his percentage to 12.4%. And for anyone who wants to argue that there is no way Bush could meet with every family, consider two things. First, that is a valid point, but it is also irrelevant because of the claim that Bush does not attend funerals because if he attended one, he would have to attend all in order not to show favoritism (see discussion in Defense 2: Bush can't show favoritism and must keep a balance). By not meeting with all of those 2703 families, no one can defend Bush's refusal to attend even one funeral or memorial service by claiming that he has met with 12.4% of them. As for the letters, just read Defense 3. I can only hope that the practice of sending a two-sentence letter with a stamped signature has been discontinued.

And then the Washington Post article mentioned Bush's treatment of 9-11 casualties. According to the article, "Bush is less reticent about public displays of grief for victims of Sept. 11." As I detailed in Defense 4: Blame It on Clinton, Bush has used the deaths of 9-11 for political ends, especially during the 2004 campaign. This was done in almost complete disregard for those families, and, indeed, members of Bush's team made it clear such use and disregard was aimed at swaying voters. This is precisely the sort of conduct Bush and his team claimed Clinton did, and when Clinton's actions are cited as a justification for Bush not attending a single funeral or memorial service, the hypocrisy is palpable.

I will also remind everyone that while Bush would not go to even one funeral or memorial service, he was more than happy to use the troops to help his campaign.

The Washington Post article also gave a reason why Bush refuses to attend funerals for the fallen, and--gee, here's a surprise--it is political in nature:

[A Bush adviser said,] "Sending troops into harm's way, that's something that weighs on him."

If he does not show that publicly, it's in keeping with a White House practice of not drawing attention to the mounting costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have killed more than 3,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of civilians. Advisers worry that sending the wrong signal would further sap public will and embolden the enemy and Bush's critics. Aides say that Bush does not attend military funerals because the presidential entourage would disrupt solemn events and that, out of respect, the media have been banned from photographing coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base. But they also know it would draw unwelcome attention to the price of the president's policies.

(emphasis added). It's always about image and appearances, isn't it?

By the way, I addressed the Dover ban in Defense 7: Protect the privacy of the families.

Keep in mind that my complaint is that Bush has not just failed, but refused to attend even one funeral or memorial service. Also keep in mind that I have already spelled out what Bush could have done and could still do to address my complaint (see What could have been done).

The Washington Post article included these choice words from Bush:

"It's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say," Bush said last year when Sheehan began her protest. "But it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life. . . . I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

Yeah, well I got news for you, pal. Part of your life is being the President of the United States, and that carries with it many duties--including moral ones. And if you are going to so boldly order a war and send American troops to be killed, those duties include publicly accepting the consequences and responsibility for those orders.

As far as I am concerned, Bush's failure and refusal to attend even one funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq is inexcusable and disgraceful.