I am going to start a general literacy program for Democrats, since the schools seem to be failing them and they simply can not comprehend even the smallest of sentence. Today’s example is from Pandagon:
John Cole gets very angry that Democrats are critcizing Bush for having failed to attend even a single funeral for troops who have died in Iraq. He then links to his debunking of the issue. Only debunking might not be the right word. You see, what he finds is that though past presidents don’t attend every funeral, they have all atteneded at least a couple. If not that, than they attended memorial services for soldiers who died. Bush, by contrast, has done none of this which, despite Cole’s protestations, makes the criticism entirely true. And even if no past presidents had done it, why shouldn’t they? Bush was the one who wanted to go to war, these men died on his initiative. As such, shouldn’t historical precedent take a backseat to common decency, and Bush should hold a memorial, attend a funeral, or at least lay a wreath down somewhere?
Of course not. What Cole fails to mention is that Bush won’t go to a funeral because the press would report it, thus giving more air time to the brave men and women dying over there. It is the same motivation that led to a ban on photographing coffins of dead soldiers and a name change for body bags (they’re biological containers or something similarly weird now), it’s about minimizing the political impact of the fallen and maximizing the president’s political gain from the war. It didn’t end up working, but they tried their hardest. And for John Cole to laud them in that quest is not only strange, it’s beneath him and anyone else who professes to “support our troops”. One of the ways to support them is to honor them for their sacrifice.
Anything more than “Taxes good, Bush bad” seems to be beyond the level of reading comprehension of the modern left anymore. Ezra (who wrote this, and not Jesse- the mistakes point that out quickly) links to the ‘debunking,’ but either failed to recongize the differences, or failed to read it. Let’s go through it one more time, and let’s try to remember that this information came from the History News Network:
Lyndon Baines Johnson – According to the Johnson Library, LBJ attended two funerals for soldiers who died during the Vietnam War. The first funeral was for Captain Albert Smith, son of White House correspondent Merriman Smith, which was held February 28, 1966. The second was for Major General Keith R. Ware, held September 17, 1968. LBJ had met Ware while visiting Vietnam.
Richard Nixon – Richard Nixon does not appear to have attended the funerals of any soldiers killed in Vietnam. He did award posthumous medals of honor to the families of several soldiers on 22 April 1971 and on several other occasions. On Veterans day in 1971 he visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery. In 1973 he met with the family of Colonel William Nolde after the colonel was buried in Arlington Cemetery. Colonel Nolde was killed on January 27th, the night before the cease-fire went into effect.
Jimmy Carter – According to the New York Times, Jimmy Carter attended a memorial service for the soldiers killed in the failed rescue of America hostages in Iran in 1980.
Ronald Reagan – Ronald Reagan attended memorial services on several occasions for American soldiers. In 1983 he attended a service at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in connection with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which cost the lives of 241 people. In 1987 he attended a service at Mayport Naval Station in Florida for the sailors killed on the USS Stark.
George H.W. Bush – President George Herbert Walker Bush does not appear to have attended any funerals for American soldiers. (The NYT, citing Marlin Fitzwater as a source, indicated that the president did attend several such funerals. But no details were provided.)
Bill Clinton – Bill Clinton attended a service in October 2000 in memory of the 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole.
After the terrorist bombing the Murrah building in downtown Oklahoma City he publicly grieved with the families of the victims at an event that was regarded at the time as a turning point in his presidency.
So the rundown is that LBJ went to two funerals, one to a soldier he had met personally, and one soldier whose father was a White House correspondent- think if Wolf Blitzer’s son had been killed. Nixon visited the Tomb of the Unknowns and a Colonel who was killed a night before the end of the war.
Those are the only PERSONAL funerals that any of the Presidents attended. LBJ knew the people whose funeral he was attending, Nixon went because symbolically this was one of the last few soldiers killed in Vietnam.
Let’s check the other Presidents action: There is no mention of Ford doing anything, while Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton ONLY ATTENDED mass memorials.
I think the notion that previous Presidents went to individual soldiers has been de-bunked, regardless of how bad Ezra’s reading comprehension is. Look at the facts, and look at Ezra’s interpretation:
Only debunking might not be the right word. You see, what he finds is that though past presidents don’t attend every funeral, they have all atteneded at least a couple. If not that, than they attended memorial services for soldiers who died
The past SEVEN Presidents before the current President Bush attended 4 funerals and several memorial services for LARGE EVENTS. Those events include Carter at Desert One memorial services, Reagan for the Beirut bombings, Clinton for the members of the USS COLE.
I might mention that Bush went to a mass memorial for all those killed at the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, keeping in line with the unwritten protocol that has been established by his predecessors.
Let’s look at Ezra’s foolish projection again:
Of course not. What Cole fails to mention is that Bush won’t go to a funeral because the press would report it, thus giving more air time to the brave men and women dying over there. It is the same motivation that led to a ban on photographing coffins of dead soldiers and a name change for body bags (they’re biological containers or something similarly weird now), it’s about minimizing the political impact of the fallen and maximizing the president’s political gain from the war. It didn’t end up working, but they tried their hardest. And for John Cole to laud them in that quest is not only strange, it’s beneath him and anyone else who professes to “support our troops”. One of the ways to support them is to honor them for their sacrifice.
For the last time, this is not the role of the Commander-in-Chief. Generally, I ignore the basic ignorance of the military and military tradition when the left babbles on and on. In my mind, being stupid about the military is a radical improvement from the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s, when they were not only stupid but overtly hostile. Stupid, as in the case of Ezra here, is a dramatic improvement. However, since Ezra insists, let’s go through this one more time. There are multiple reasons a President does not attend funerals of those killed in the line of duty during wartime. These reasons include- which funeral should he attend, why was this soldier’s service greater than any others, is it not the role of the Commander-in-Chief to be the ‘Mourner in Chief’ (ever heard of ministers andpriests?), it sends a message of weakness to the enemy- that this was a tragic loss and not the ultimate sacrifice given willingly in wartime, it shows a lack of national resolve, it will fuel resentment among families whose funeral the President does not attend, the attendance by the President will overshadow the funeral itself- the focuse of which should be a beautiful ceremony for the deceased and the deceased’s family and not the President, and on and on.
As far as the policy regarding the press coverage of flag draped caskets, this is a policy from 3 administrations ago that only recently has been enforced due to litigation. Ezra should know this, although it is apparent there is a world of things he does not know, can not comprehend, or is too lazy to look into.
When we get to the specious claims that the President has not met with wounded soldiers, I guess this was just a fabrication:
I guess Ezra missed today’s papers, too:
The notion that the President is avoiding funerals because he is afraid of negative coverage is simply vile rhetoric from the know-nothing left. I am going to refuse to even discuss this disgusting agitprop from our friends on the fringe left until they can come up a coherent argument better than the one provided here by the lightweight lunatic Ezra Klein.
*** Update ***
Ezra still can’t read.
Ezra states (in defense of his argument babble):
As it goes, past presidents have attended few funerals or memorial services (though they have mostly attended a couple of each), so Bush shouldn’t have to.
Two of the seven past presidents have attended INDIVIDUAL funerals, and I noted the exceptions. LBJ knew the people in the two he went to, Nixon went because the person killed was killed the night before a ceasefire. It is documented. I challenge him to find otherwise, or dismiss his new definition of ‘MOST.’
Other Presidents have gone to MASS SERVICES, and I noted the types of occassion- The Beirut Bombing for Reagan, Desert One services for Carter, the USS Cole bombing victims for Clinton, and the 9/11 funeral that this President attended.
That is it, for the most part. That is all. I also list a number of reasons why the President SHOULD NOT attend funerals, and this is Ezra’s response (again- that reading thing):
Quite basically, Bush has done everything humanly possible to keep casualties out of the media. It hasn’t worked, but they’ve tried damn hard. They have stepped up (as in, this is the first time it will be enforced) enforcement of an old ban on photographing military caskets, reporters are not allowed anywhere near funerals (regardless of the family’s wishes, it’s a law), body bags are now called “transfer tubes”, and despite being at Fort Carson during a military memorial, he declined to attend. Let me repeat, he declined to attend a memorial service he was already at! I guess the reasoning is that Clinton wasn’t there, either.
John can blow all the gaskets he wants but it doesn’t change the essential facts of this issue. Bush, or others from his cabinet, should be attending funerals simply so they understand the cost of war. Further, the Bush Administration has done everything humanly possible to keep Americans from seeing the casualties and losses we’ve sustained, which is a cheap way to keep up support for a war. It is dishonorable to launch wars and ask nothing of the American people, up to and including denying them sad moments where they reflect on the human cost of such ventures. Government should not willfully create a disconnect between their policies and their constituents; we should see and know what is occurring, that is how we can make informed decisions.
John accuses me of being “stupid” about the military. Ignoring the schoolyard quality of his rhetoric, he’s out of line. I am advocating that I, and all people, become less stupid about the military. There are people dying over there and that deserves recognition. As it is, we live in an age of bloodless wars where Americans don’t understand the cost of military conflict. That’s not to say that it isn’t often necessary, but we are too free with force and too ignorant of what it actually means. Notice that the only person in the Administration who didn’t want to enter into this conflict was Powell, “coincidentally” the only member of the Administration who had actually been in a war.
This disconnect between the reality of war and the easy victories we see will, sooner or later, lead us into a fight we won’t win, and we’re going to pay dearly in lives for that bit of ignorance. John is set upon aiding this Administration in their secrecy and media-based manipulations of the conflict, a strange position for any conservative to put himself in. If Clinton did this, he was wrong. If Carter did it, he was wrong. Bush is doing it, and doing it on a much greater scale than any of his predecessors, he is wrong and it should not be tolerated.
Ezra is simply wrong or lying about the policy regarding the ban on the military caskets. Since I have corrected him once, and he repeats it, he must be lying. Reporters are allowed to film or attend military funerals- I saw two on the NBC news the other night. They are forbidden from filming remains in transport- in other words, filming the caskets before they have been delivered to the families of the deceased.
The administration has not ‘stepped up’ enforcement of this decade or so old law, but litigation that was enacted when the regulation was put in place has finally been ended, and now the regulation can be enforced as intended.
That is 0 for 2, Ezra. Why are you lying?
The rest is just more of Ezra’s loony left double-speak and tinfoil hat madness. I am not intent on hiding the casualties of this war– the number of dead and wounded can be found easily, and when soldiers are killed it is displayed in every newspaper and on every television show. No one is hiding anything- but we do refuse to play politics with the dead, something that is not beneath Ezra and his ilk. If they are not playing politics with the dead, the whole of his argument is that ‘Hey- war is real tough and people die.’
Deep thinkers, these guys.
BTW- Ezra- ‘Poisoning the debate’ and ‘poisoning the well’ means knowingly and willfully injecting lies and falsehoods into the public and pretending they are the truth. I merely assumed you were semi-literate in my previous post. Now, it is clear you are a liar.
*** Update #3 ***
Still not addressing his lies and mistakes, Ezra now insists that since Ezra himself thinks Bush should attend funerals, Bush is to fault because he is not going to those funerals. Again, no mention of all the reasons why Bush isn’t and the historical context.
At any rate, all aspiring politicians should email Ezra and get his email address or cell phone number. I am sure policy makers and leaders everywhere are dying to know what you think they ‘should’ do. Meanwhile, Jesse chimes in and has his knickers in a twist because I spelled since wrong (it has SINCE been corrected). Someone please go explain the difference between reading comprehension, argument formulation, debate, and a typo.
Dean
John,
Give it up.
Short of showing up at a memorial service and resigning (presumably in favor of Al Gore, the “rightfully elected” President), presumably to be followed by surrendering to the ICC, nothing is going to make these folks stop their silly comparisons. If a few facts need to be warped or a little history needs revising along the way, it’s a small price to pay….
John Cole
I just can’t get over the flat out lying- I show who has gone to what, and Ezra states “You see, what he finds is that though past presidents don’t attend every funeral, they have all atteneded at least a couple.”
NO THEY FUCKING HAVE NOT. ONLY NIXON AND LBJ have attended funerals.
You can almost see the drool hitting the keyboard as Ezra types.
I would love to see these guys take a Miller analogy test, or at least the reading comprehension portion of any standardized test.
Dean
John,
And that’s where you’re wrong.
As Orwell observed in 1984, it required simultaneous stupidity AND intelligence in order to properly engage in double-think. The mental gymnastics required to believe that two plus two equals five because the Party demanded it meant you had to be smart (to handle the flip-flop) and stupid (to truly accept it).
I’d venture that many of these folks are actually quite bright, as measured by various aptitude tests. It takes a willful, but not necessarily stupid, mind to believe
All other Presidents went to lots of funerals and services and W doesn’t simply because he doesn’t want to look bad and if other Presidents didn’t go they still went anyway because Dubyadoesn’twanttolookasbadastheydidwhentheydidn’tgo.
Almost as simultaneously stupid and smart as claiming that we’re no safer than we were on September 10, 2001.
The Commissar
I’ve been reading your blog for about a year now, and only last night (maybe after I took a Flexeril) it hit me: “Balloon Juice — as in hot air — I get it — ha ha ha.”
Very good, John.
dude
Nice cans!
Kimmitt
I’m baffled by this particular meme, as well, for the record. It’s really not a fair attack, and with so many fair things to hit Bush on, why sink to the RNC’s level?
HH
This is so obviously driven by Bush hatred… the president traditionally does not attend funerals, period. He sends the Veep. The fact that the attacks are concentrated on Bush is telling.
Moe Lane
“It’s really not a fair attack, and with so many fair things to hit Bush on, why sink to the RNC’s level?”
I’ll politely ignore that last bit and just neutrally point out that this argument is part of the “We’re the ones that REALLY care about the troops, not the Republicans” agitprop theme set up to combat the public’s perception of the Democrat’s natsec credibility.
Rick W.
I’ve only been here a short while…I sort of thought “ballon juice” was a euphemism for breast milk.
Jon H
That bottom soldier doesn’t look at all well.
roger
spellcheck is my friend…dont post angry.
Stephen
There is a useful logic to all this.
After all, what Iraq ante-bellum-supporting Bush-hater can claim any credibility at all without having attended a shredding.
There just ain’t no sincerity.
Steve
I think you could have shortened this post considerably by simply writing:
“Ezra, get your head out of your rectum before you suffocate.”
Juliette
People like this don’t understand that a president might not want his presence to overshadow the “star” of the funeral, the deceased. The reason they don’t understand is because concepts like humility, dignity, politeness and civility mean nothing to them. All of the foregoing are what President Bush demonstrates in refraining from turning the sacrifice of these soldiers into media circuses and political statements. (See Wellstone funeral.)
Oh yeah, and the Krauthammer-coined Bush Derangement Syndrome is the other reason they don’t understand.
Dean
But, Juliette, don’t we want our President to “share our pain”? To be the sympathizer in chief?
Dean
Having just read the last of Ezra’s comments, I’m startled:
The EXACT SAME sentiments could be applied to Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright. Indeed, Albright specifically said that the US military was there to be used (in the context of Bosnia and Kosovo), while it was Powell, noting his own experiences in Vietnam, who argued against it.
One wonders, does this mean that Albright (and presumably Clinton) were wrong in not attending more funerals? (AFAIK, Albright’s attended none.) Does this mean that perhaps, if Clinton had attended more military funerals (e.g., for the victims on the Cole or Khobar Towers) he might have acted MORE promptly viz. terrorists? Does this mean that Powell was right and Clinton wrong in going into the former Yugoslavia?
Most of all, perhaps heads of state should visit the funerals of their enemies (e.g., Serbian civilians) to be reminded of the consequences of their actions?
Somehow, I don’t think Ezra had any of this in mind, do you?
Ricky
Ironic topic in that today’s AJC’s headline is “Bush visits injured troops” with a picture of him next to a hospital bed.
Ezra
I’ve wasted enough space on this argument over at my site. On the subject of being unable to tape military funerals – http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/iraq_funerals_031114-1.html.
Next, you willfully misrepresent my argument when you talk about knowing the number of dead. As I clearly state a couple of times, that is not my point, my point has to do with understanding that real people are dying, seeing the body bags come home, ending the practice of the “body count”, etc. If you think I’m playing politics with the dead you misunderstand me. I was for this war, a strong supporter of it in fact. Nonetheless, calling body bags “transfer tubes” and barring the filming of funerals is the wrong way to deal with a hard subject. Americans need to see the cost of war, it shouldn’t be hidden nor have its name sanitized in order to keep us from understanding what we are doing.
As for poisoning the debate (or, as it is usually said, the discourse), it can also mean dropping down to attacks and simply flinging insults at the other side. It makes informed conversation useless for both sides treat each as enemies rather than intelligent people have a disagreement. As with many english idioms, there are multiple meanings. You have in general, refused to respond to the actual points I’m making (an accusation you throw at me as well). Part of it seems to be that you are too angry to see straight, much less formulate a persuasive argument here. If you ever want to have a dialogue on how we should treat the dead of war, I’m game, I think it’d be an illuminating discussion. But your constant attacks on my intellect, spelling, reading, etc do nothing for your argument and maybe, maybe, serve to make some of your readers laugh, but they don’t allow us to have a reasonable discussion about this.
It’s a tough issue, no doubt. As a supporter of this war, it breaks my heart to see people dying for it. As such, I think their sacrifices should be given wide play, they are not mere numbers but actual people who died for their country. A government official should be at each funeral to honor the family and the fallen. However, you’re far more intent on telling me what Clinton did or did not do (and what a moron I am) than actually addressing the issue, so it seems we’ve gone as far as we can with the argument. Your ability to have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems is truly atrocious, and something you should work on. Nothing is gained, on either side, by simply flinging insults and hatred. As I stated earlier, I’d love to actually have a discussion with you on this issue, I think it’d be illuminating for readers on both our sites. But not until you can match your formidable intellect with some civility and appreciation for dissenting opinions.
Ezra
Dean — That is exactly what i had in mind. I mentioned specifically that Clinton should have attended more as well. I think that leaders need to know both the cost of their actions on their populaces and on other ones — hopefully, better decisions could come of it. Had Clinton emotionally understood what was happening in Rwanda, he might have prevented it. Clinton did attend a COle memorial, but had he attended a funeral, maybe terrorism would have become a bigger deal to him. All would have been positive outcomes and stem from the exact point I’m arguing.
I know, as a liberal, I’m supposed to say differently, but I think everyone wishes that Clinton had acted quicker on terrorism, and on a number of other threats as well (Kosovo, Haiti, Rwanda). Understanding what the survivors were going through by personalizing the slaughters would have been positive for everyone involved. Same goes for Carter, Reagan, and both Bushes. Only difference is that George W. can still do something about it.
JimBobElrod
Can you imagine Abe Lincoln trying to keep up with funeral services for Union soldiers? No wonder he looked so haggard. It’s a little known fact that he was the first President to hire aides whose sole purpose was to follow Union armies and attend funerals following battles. I believe these aides had to hire sub-aides to keep up with the demand. Look it up.
John Cole
The filming of funerals is not being banned. The filming of caskets on military bases has been banned since 1991. Period. End of story.
http://www.news-leader.com/today/1127-US,mediafi-227191.html
A news organzation once reported Dewey beating Truman…
I have responded to every point you made, since you only made two- Your first point is that Bush is hiding from funerals (which has now morphed into ‘I think Bush should attend funerals,’ your second point is that the reason he should attend is because he is responsible for the decision and people need to know war costs.
In return, I have stated the historical records on Prsidents attending funerals and why they do not, why they should not, and corrected you (for the third time now) on the actual Pentagon policy.
I did not nitpick your spelling- that was your blogpartner nitpicking me.
In short, you are making a normative statement about what Bush should do (‘He should attend funerals’) while paying no attention to the normative or objective data regarding why he should not. From there, you assert that the reason he is not attending the funerals is to ‘hide the costs’ of war. That you can now argue that you do not intend to use the funerals as an attempt to ‘show the costs’ of war, while arguing that is not your intent and that the war dead are already known about, is absurdity.
Sure, the President attending a funeral would be a nice gesture. It would also be wrong, stupid, and a very bad precedent, for all the reasons I have stated repeatedly (including the historical precedent), that you continue to neither comprehend or ignore.
BTW- Whose funeral would you recommend he go to? Why that person? With Jesse Jackson around, he better not go to a white soldiers funeral. What if the family doesn’t want him there? Should he go anyway? What if he goes to one and every family wants him at their funeral? Should he go? If your son died, would you want a presidential motorcade present at the funeral? Would you want the secret service going over the list of funeral attendees prior to the funeral? Would you mind the media there?
It is clear you have not given this any thought, and this is just another way for you to bash Bush.
Dean
So, Ezra, a President who can’t stomach the sight of death shouldn’t commit the country to war? Then what happens the next time a Jimmy Carter is elected?
What you are suggesting would rapidly lead to the potential race of bloodthirstiness, wouldn’t it?
“I am willing, nay, I REVEL in the prospects of death. I personally SHOOT five of my Republican Guardsmen a week, and bathe in their blood!”
Okay, a bit extreme, but do you see the point?
I’ve thought about your response, and I have to say that it deeply troubles me.
I do NOT want a President who commits us to war because of the emotional impact of people starving or being hacked to death on TV. By that same measure, I do NOT want a President who CANNOT commit us to war because of the prospect of loss. (And, in that regard, I don’t know about you, but when I supported the war, I expected to lose people. Kosovo was a FLUKE. We were VERY VERY LUCKY. It was not, and will not be, the norm.)
No, I want a President who commits us to war for the sake of the national interest (undoubtedly something that is open to debate, what that interest might be). And if it is necessary to go to war, I expect the President to do it, even if many thousands of GIs will die. And if it is not necessary to the national interest, then I hope the President will refrain from committing troops, although few of ours might die, and EVEN IF there are thousands dying on TV, be it from malice or nature.
Playing to the emotional side, I think, serves little real purpose.
And, in that regard, I don’t think most politicians, including either Bush or Clinton, cavalierly commit troops (although Albright, of all the recent political types, comes closest to making me truly doubt that).
kneejerk? liberal
I came to this thread by way of pandagon and I’m what you would probably call a leftist or a liberal. But I have to admit that you, John, have logic and reason on your side here. The whole funeral thing IS being played for emotional effect by the left side of the blogosphere. I thought so long ago. There are lots of reasons why a president (even an unelected one) might not attend those funerals, but the first one I thought of was that it might be seen as a slight to those whose funerals he could not attend. Not to mention somebody somewhere would mock any such attendance as a “photo op.” I’m not defending W’s other photo ops, I’m just saying. Anyway, I just wanted to pipe in so you would know that not every body is so knee-jerk. If you would calm down and lose some of the abusive rhetoric, you might actually convince some people who would normally be inclined to disagree with you.
Ezra
News orgs can be wrong, but I don’t think ABC made a mistake there. Further, I think it’s the wrong policy to ban the filming of caskets. I take you at your word that the reason is litigation that just went through, regardless, I think it’s a bad policy for the following reason.
One byproduct of being unused to sustaining casualties in war is being to cavalier in going to war. The American people are too easily swayed by death, mostly because we’re not used to it. When we enter something like the Iraq war, we have to be prepared to stay the course for as long as it takes, and we have to be steadfast in the face of losses. Americans are so unused to what war means in the terms of fallen soldiers that they are agreeable to go to war but, as soon as casualties go high enough that the media really gets on it, they want to pull out again (go check Polling Report for more on American opinions on staying the course). My feeling is that the primary culprit is not having been prepared for what war would cost in the first place, and not being allowed to see the reality of wars in general. For this reason, I see these policies as deleterious to efforts that I’m in favor of and that, regardless of my feelings, we need to be successful in.
I don’t find your normative data convincing. I realize that historically, Bush isn’t much worse than most, and he’s no worse than some. Regardless, that doesn’t excuse his actions. I understand the logistical problems inherent in picking funerals, but you can’t tell me that he couldn’t have gone to any. Maybe the one in Washington. Maybe one where the dead was particularly heroic. I simply don’t believe that recriminations from Jesse Jackson figure into the president’s decisions much, and I further don’t believe that Rove and Co. couldn’t figure out a funeral he could safely attend. It just doesn’t pass the smell test, though you may certainly disagree with my opinion without me labeling you illiterate (that, by the way, is what an argument is).
I also have not heard you respond to the “Transfer Tube” move, I think it one of the most telling things this administration has done.
You’re quite out of line in saying I have given this no thought. I have given it quite a bit, and have simply come to a different conclusion than you. That is, by the way, a legal and intellectually sound thing to do. It would be nice if the president would go to a few funerals where he was wanted and if you think those don’t exist, you only lie to yourself (as I know of a few examples). Further, cabinet members, government officials, or others could go — it’s simply to honor the dead, it’s not publicity, and it can be done without cameras. Some want their president’s to have combat experience. I don’t require that (though I don’t mind it), but I do want them to understand the human side of the military. And this is not a way to bash Bush, as you so simplistically categorize it. My reasoning was well laid out in the post about Clark’s comment, which you read and are clearly ignoring if you think this has anything to do with Bush. I said, multiple times, that Clinton, Carter and other Presidents should attend funerals. I even said it here in your comments — sorry if that’s inconvenient, but the fact remains that I think there is a valuable lesson for a leader to see the results of his policies on the bottom.
Dean – That comes down to one’s own choices. I don’t want to elect a Carter nor a Kucinich, I want strong leaders who can weigh the human and statistical aspects of a policy. That is why I have supported both Gary Hart, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark (my current choice) throughout this election. I can’t speak to what other presidents would do, but I sincerely feel that Bush’s disconnect with war’s effects has led to an overconfidence in utilizing our military. I can’t make policies worrying about what happens if we elect someone who can’t follow them. Elect a Carter or Kucinich and you’re not going to war anyway, so the point is moot.
I don’t want a President who commits us to war because he went to a funeral, but I also don’t want one who commits us to war without a full and emotional understanding of what that choice entails. Force should be used, but it should be used with a fearful respect and a sincere restraint, I think visiting funerals is a way to instill that in our leaders.
Out of curiosity, why do you think Albright was cavalier in committing troops?
Ezra
One last thing — I’ve been looking, hard, for a memorial service Bush attended. I don’t mean a speech where he mentioned the dead, I mean a service. As your reasearch bears out, a number of presidents have attended memorials services for soldiers (not civilians, 9/11 services are different than what I’m talking about) who’ve died on their watch. This includes quite a few who had far fewer die on their watch than Bush has. If he has indeed not attended any, I find that shameful, as none of the logistical questions surrounding funerals apply. As you know, he was at a base where one was held in the past few days but he did not attend.
Oh, and as far as I’m concerned, Iraq is a large event and there have been a number of services honoring the many dead. He could have hit up any of them without questions of why he chose a particular service.
So why hasn’t he? And what are the downsides around him doing so? This plays back into my argument that he is scrupulously keeping the media attention that he attracts away from these events and thus, away from the casualties. That aside, a memorial service would achieve a similar effect to funerals by humanizing the fallen. He should attend, not just for the soldiers, but for himself.
Joe Schmoe
Ezra, yours is one of the most pompous and presumptuous things I have ever read.
Bush needs to attend funerals to “understand the cost of war?”
Is Bush an idiot? A sociopath? Do you really believe that he is so callous as to be incapble of imagining what it is like to lose a friend or a loved one?
Here is a news flash: most Americans us have lost loved ones. Most Americans are familiar with pain, suffering, and the human condition. We have seen loved ones die of cancer. We have seen people with painful and disabling injuries. These things are not a mystery.
Bush does not need to attend a military funeral to “learn” of the cost of war. He already realizes, as does anyone with even a shred of sanity, that soldiers are not chess pieces, and that war is not a game of Risk.
Of course Bush values our soldiers’ lives. Of course he understands the cost. WE ALL UNDERSTAND IT.
It is more than a little ironic that you, yourself have not given any inidcation that you have attended funerals of soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. Yet you seem to have a keen insight into the “cost” of war that the rest of us lack. Perhaps it is becuase you are on a more enlightened spiritual plane than the rest of us, to whom the soldiers are merely flickering images on a TV screen.
All Americans understand what it means for a solider to die in Iraq. We do not need to be “reminded” of this, thank you very much.
Joe Schmoe
Amother thing that you need to consider, Ezra, is that we are all at risk in this war. The war is being fought on American soil. I am afraid for my life, and for the lives of my loved ones. I do not want to die in a terrorist attack.
Our soldiers have volunteered – volunteered! – to take risks so that I can be safe. They are literally shielding me from terrorists with their bodies. You are damn right that I appreciate this, and I suspect that Bush appreciates it too. I do not beleive that he needs to attend some maudlin memorial service to be “reminded” of it.
One of the most terrible things abotut this war is that it is inevitable. We cannot stop fighting. There are no peace treaties to sign or compromises to broker; the terrorists will keep attacking us whether we defend ourselves or not.
It’s not I can decide that the war “just isn’t worth it” after attending the funeral of a solider who fell in Iraq or Afghanistan after seeing his or her grieving spouse, parents, and children. Suppose I decide that the human cost is just too great, and that the war just isn’t worth the life of this brave hero?
It doesn’t matter! Bin Laden and the terrorists will kill me anyway! We don’t have any choice but to fight.
Our soldiers have volunteered to put themselves at risk so that I may be safe. I do not need to be reminded of the value of their sacrifice.
Random Numbers
“I’d venture that many of these folks are actually quite bright, as measured by various aptitude tests. It takes a willful, but not necessarily stupid, mind to believe”
You can shorten that statement by calling it intentional stupidity. NO ONE can be that stupid by accident.
Random Numbers
OK. I’ve finished reading the drivel by Ezra on his site and John’s responses. You can’t win this one, John. Ezra will keeb moving the target and chaging the argument. He is not going to let some pesky little thing called historical evidence stand in his way.
My G-d!! The guy makes Fallwell seem reasonable!
Patrick
Ezra,
It’s a simple matter of decency, as stated by the White House when asked. Why should the President take a tragedy and turn it into a circus? Do you have any idea of the net of security that surrounds the President when he travels? Running funeral attendees through the gauntlet of Secret Service screening, with a few black monster SUV’s and a dozen or so burly guys talking to their cufflinks looking around nervously – for what? So you can feel better that our President understands the “cost of war”? I can state without reservation that he understands the human cost – you can see it in his eyes.
If I were the family of a soldier killed in action, I wouldn’t want the President at the funeral, screwing up my day even worse. Let the families mourn their loss, and stop trying to make a political issue out of this.
Rich
The point that going to the funerals of soldiers shows weakness is complete nonsense. To honorably recognize the sacrifices a soldier made is what a country should do, regardless of the tender feelings of the C-in-C and other war supporters.
It hardly shows resolve or determination when the US sweeps casualties under the rug and pretends they don’t exist.
Hiding the unbearable sight of the consequences of war does not convince anybody that the USA is tough, just the opposite.
It convinces other countries that we’re a bunch of wussies and pansies who can’t stand the sight of blood. It tells other countries we have no stick-to-itiveness and that we’ll fold at the first sign of trouble.
JadeGold
THE DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE BACK THIS CRAVEN AND COWARDLY COUNTRY! REPUGS CAN BE HUNTED DOWN AND DESTROYED VERY EASY!
To hunt and trap an conservative male (aka sister and sheep fucking redneck), you
dave_violence
What on earth makes anyone think that W doesn’t attend funerals because it would make him look bad? According to the various linked articles, LBJ attended two – and how many American soldiers died in Viet Nam? Bush is visiting injured soldiers, isn’t that “worth” anything? Who says he can’t stand the sight of death? Is there any evidence of this? Has he said he’s frightened of seeing dead people? This is the man who, as Governor of Texas ordered the execution of saints like Kenneth Allen McDuff?
Boggles the mind…
JadeGold: how did you learn this amazing information? Do you have photos of “conservative” women having sex with goats?
Steve
Ezra,
Good job moving the goal posts. First it was:
A claim which Cole completely obliterates. So not it becomes
Of course, the presumptive arrogance of your new position is that Bush doesn’t understand the cost in terms of the losses to families, and further, that he will understand this loss by seeing the grief of those who are experiencing it.
See there are two problems here.
1. Implicitly you are saying Bush is an unfeeling ogre.
2. Anybody can understand what it is like to lose somebody in a time of war by going to the funeral.
I think both are untrue. I’ll never know what it is like to lose somebody in a time of war until I actually (God forbid) do. I don’t expect you to understand this give that you are so busy moving your goal posts.
Now you sound like a whiney punk bitch given that you are the one implying Bush is an unfeeling monster.
Patrick
JadeGold,
You are a pathetic creature. Your creative writing has all of the attraction of the average set of toy assembly instructions. And you seem to know much about miniature genitalia and waving tequila at 7-11 employees, so I think we can extrapolate what you’re doing when you’re not bombarding us with your drivel.
Merry Christmas (as in Christ, you know?)
Bird Dog
JadeGold,
Thanks for displaying your bigotry so openly. If you really believe what you write, you are indeed sad and pathetic.
Kimmitt
Hang on, I just got through some of the reading.
“The administration has not ‘stepped up’ enforcement of this decade or so old law, but litigation that was enacted when the regulation was put in place has finally been ended, and now the regulation can be enforced as intended.”
This is not correct — the Pentagon regulation previously only applied to Dover Air Force Base (and the lawsuit in question was concluded in 1998, if memory serves). The law was put into place under Bush 41 when the President was shown golfing in a split screen with the arrival of the caskets at Dover. The Bush 43 Administration expanded the regulation to include Rammstein and other bases at the eve of the war. The Administration has tightened rules regarding the photography of incoming caskets.
Ironbear
“I’m baffled by this particular meme, as well, for the record. It’s really not a fair attack, and with so many fair things to hit Bush on, why sink to the RNC’s level?” – Kimmit
I agree with Kimmit again. [Even the tag end is workable: Bush does hav fair openings for both Dems, Conservatives, and Libertarians to critique him on]
Question: having read Pandagon in the past, and having come away unimpressed each time, I’m not seeing why you’re bothing wasting so much effort on them, John. Obtuseness and blind Bush dislike seems to be the mode of rationale there, regardless of other input.