Military funerals, more partisan lies

[musicguy]

I was listening to KABC talk radio this morning. The conservative host, Al Rantel, was complaining about the flak Bush is receiving for not attending any of the funerals of the soldiers that had lost their lives in Iraq. His guest was someone from newsmax.com. This idiot wanted to know how come Clinton gets off scott free when he never attended any military funerals either. He stated that he did "extensive research" and could find no instance of Clinton ever attending a military funeral. This "fact" is also stated on the newsmax website.

Yet, in a comprehensive review of reports from 1993 to 2001, we couldn't find a single instance of Mr. Clinton attending any military funeral anywhere.

newsmax article

Well, Mr Dumbass, it took me less than a minute to find a picture of Clinton at the funeral for victims of the USS Cole.
here

So, why is it that I can confirm this with less than a minute on Google but you, in the media, cannot.

You also stated that no presidents in recent history have attended military funerals. But I seem to recall both Bush Sr. and Reagan, attending military funerals. As far as I can find, Bush Jr. is the only president in 20 plus years who has not. I suppose it would take too much time away from fundraising. Oh yeah, and it wouldn't look too good considering the "mission accomplished" message that you so proudly proclaimed.

I get so friggin tired of these outright lies. At this rate, Al Franken should be able to write a few sequels before too long.

[Bruce_Daddy]

[stretch]

That was a memorial service, one year after the bombing. Cite

[/stretch]

[musicguy]

Not quite. The date on the top of my cite was 10/18/00, just 6 days after the Cole bombing.

[Bruce_Daddy]

Let me also add that given the extensive security planning that goes into any presidential trip, it is nearly impossible for the president to go to a traditional funeral, days after the person(s) have died. So it's a mute point which president has gone to what funeral.

[In Conceivable]

Who would want the president at their loved one's funeral? A funeral is a private time for family and friends to mourn, not a play ground for the secret service or a photo op for the president.

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by musicguy
...So, why is it that I can confirm this with less than a minute on Google but you, in the media, cannot.

See, its like this, the media is Liberal and out to make Bush look bad…..wait, that makes not sense, does it? Its almost as if they are being Bush apologists. hmmmmmm.

[wring]

Bruce I rarely do this, but...

the word is "moot" it's a "moot" point.

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by Bruce_Daddy
Let me also add that given the extensive security planning that goes into any presidential trip, it is nearly impossible for the president to go to a traditional funeral, days after the person(s) have died. So it's a mute point which president has gone to what funeral.

Well, the ways things are going, Bush just needs to be somewhere random in the US, and dead soldiers will soon be clogging up the local funeral parlor wherever he's at.


I'm more mad about this. Clinton gets a pass (but not a free one) since he wasn't officially at war.

[Bruce_Daddy]

Originally posted by wring
Bruce I rarely do this, but...

the word is "moot" it's a "moot" point.

I can't hear you.

[musicguy]

I guess it is easier to dismiss it all as a moot point, rather than concede that your "cite" was from an entirely seperate event.

As far as security issues, Clinton seemed able to work around that, within 6 days of the incident.

[Bruce_Daddy]

Originally posted by musicguy
I guess it is easier to dismiss it all as a moot point, rather than concede that your "cite" was from an entirely seperate event.

As far as security issues, Clinton seemed able to work around that, within 6 days of the incident.

You're absolutely right. I saw "Oct" and "Memorial" and was mistaken.

[musicguy]

And my point wasn't to debate the pros and cons of a president attending a funeral. It was simply anger towards these conservative liars, who don't bother to check any facts, even though the information can be easily found. They just spew in all directions, assuming that nobody will attempt to verify the misinformation.

[musicguy]

no problem, Bruce-Daddy, Mistakes happen.

[musicguy]

By the way, the person who was on the Al Rantel show was Carl Limbacher.

I just sent him the following e-mail:

Sir, I listened to you on Al Rantel's show today. You stated that you were unable to find any evidence of Clinton ever attending any military funeral, including any from the USS Cole victims. I spent less than a minute on google and was able to find a picture of Clinton preparing to give a eulogy at a funeral for the Cole victims on 10/18/00. I would suggest that your research skills are severely lacking, or you are simply a partisan liar. Either way, your credibility is laughable. Learn how to use a search engine.

I'll let you know if I get a response.

[elucidator]

And why, exactly, do you hate America so much?

[rjung]

Because we let ignorant idjits like Carl Limbacher spew ignorant dreck and nobody calls him on it?

[London_Calling]

Sorry Musicguy, I'm repulsed by Bush but I have to say I don’t think the case is made against him here. Here we go:

In what capacity was Clinton attending the USS Cole service, as

- Head of State
- Commander of the Armed Forces
- President
- Private grieving citizen?


With that knowledge I’d ask, is it common for the person in that role to attend, not funerals as you say, but a unique Memorial Service at the dockside on the homecoming of the victims?

Then I’d ask how practical is it for the president to attend every funeral of a someone dying in Iraq (clearly not, it would be a full-time job in itself at the moment), followed by, whether it’s right to attend some funerals and not others, and on what basis do you decide that?

Finally, I’d ask if the president, given the time being fair and equitable would consume, has better things to do (in the interests of the country) and, instead of a one-off as the USS Cole dockside Memorial Service was, how long would the president continue to attend funerals as this is likely to go on for a very considerable length of time to come?


I don’t worry quite so much about the protests he’d attract, or the negative media image or the callous way ignoring the dead portrays him.

But I do think there are possible reasons that might explain why the comparison is unfair ?

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
I'm more mad about this. Clinton gets a pass (but not a free one) since he wasn't officially at war.

In addition to the whole business about Bush banning media coverage of when the bodies of dead US soldiers are returned to American soil, one has to love the following:

But today's military doesn't even use the words "body bags" — a term in common usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 Americans died.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them "human remains pouches" and it now refers to them as "transfer tubes."

"Transfer tubes." How wonderfully Orwellian.

[Miller]

Interesting how lies mutate through retelling. Various right-wing "pundits" have been spreading a similar lie about Hillary Clinton not attending any 9/11 memorial services. I suppose that's what makes lies so convenient: it only takes a few quick changes to shift the smear to the target du jour, where as when you're dealing with facts, you have to actually wait for them to happen before you use them as evidence of how scummy your opponent really is.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by London_Calling
Finally, I’d ask if the president, given the time being fair and equitable would consume, has better things to do (in the interests of the country) and, instead of a one-off as the USS Cole dockside Memorial Service was, how long would the president continue to attend funerals as this is likely to go on for a very considerable length of time to come?

Certainly Bush can't attend all the funerals. But he, or some high-ranking proxy such as Dick Cheney, could either attend the occasional funeral, or periodically show up at Dover AFB for a brief memorial service when the bodies arrive.

After all, they seem to have plenty of time for fundraising. (An even better source is www.whitehouse.gov - looks like Bush and Cheney have appeared at six Bush-Cheney '04 fundraisers already this month, on top of ten last month.

Which was how I noticed that, just three weeks ago, Bush proclaimed National Character Counts Week. ROFL!!

[London_Calling]

Point most happily taken RTFirefly, what about the rest of my treating like-as-like questions ?

[musicguy]

London-Calling,

Just to explain, my purpose wasn't so much to say that Bush must attend these funerals, as it was to rant about one more of the never-ending lies that the right seems so good at these days.

Still, the latter part of my rant did suggest that I was comparing Bush to the former presidents. I understand your points about the fact that under these circumstances, there would be far too many funerals to attend and picking and choosing which ones to attend would be a no-win situation. Still, I think that when Clinton or Bush Sr. or Reagan, attended the funeral services on their watch, it brought comfort to the greiving families and was the right thing to do. It showed that they felt a responsibility came with their decisions to send our soldiers into combat. I just don't see that with Bush.

Maybe the comparison is unfair, as you suggest though. It really wasn't the point of my rant anyway. I probably should have nixed the last paragraph. Heat of the moment and all...

[musicguy]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Certainly Bush can't attend all the funerals. But he, or some high-ranking proxy such as Dick Cheney, could either attend the occasional funeral, or periodically show up at Dover AFB for a brief memorial service when the bodies arrive.

After all, they seem to have plenty of time for fundraising.

I'm trying to find a cite but I recall reading that one of those fundraisers took place less than 5 miles, and at the same time, from where one of the funerals was being held.

[London_Calling]

Yep sure, musicguy. I understood the rant. But it’s also the old ‘Clinton did this, Bush does this’ thing as well, and I left It alone thinking one of the tin foilers would be along to offer a different perspective.

Not my fight but I thought someone had to offer a counter view . . . them tin foilers seem to dying out faster than the dinosaurs lately . . . it's oddly liberating to make their arguements for 'em.


Fwiw, I suspect there’s some kind or rule; an inverse relationship between the extremism of an administration and the quietness of its erstwhile supporters . . .

[elucidator]

You have to consider the space/time coordinates for the point where the trajectory of the shit intersects the locus of the fan.

[Typo Negative]

Al Franken, in his book, 'proved' that no news organization reported about the time Bush puked on Japanese Prime Minister using the Ann Coulter google techinque.

In short, you google carefully selected words and use the fact that those search terms produced no results as proof that there was nothing out there to find.

[ralph124c]

Didn't Clinton showup for the funeral of one of those poor kids who got killed in Somalia? From what I heard, the father (of the dead soldier) refused to shake hands with Clinton-this shocked (and surprised) the C-in-C mightily!

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by Miller
Interesting how lies mutate through retelling. Various right-wing "pundits" have been spreading a similar lie about Hillary Clinton not attending any 9/11 memorial services.

I bet that's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' thing. If she doesn't show up to enough funerals, she's a heartless bitch that doesn't care . If she goes to all of 'em, she's an attention grabbing bitch who's mourning for the cameras.

[Mr. Moto]

What would the etiquette be of having more than one limo in the procession?

Should the President bring a covered dish to the wake? Who would be responsible for getting the dish back to the White House?

In my neck of the woods, funerals were for friends and family only. I remember people being ticked off once when a county commissioner came by to sign the book at the viewing. He didn't know the deceased well, and it was seen as tacky.

[RTFirefly]

I agree with Mr. Moto and others who point out that (at least for those who aren't public figures) funerals are normally for those who knew the deceased well enough to mourn at his/her passing. The President (whoever he is at a given time) shouldn't attend funerals of our combat troops unless invited, IMHO.

However, that doesn't prevent the military from holding brief memorial services at Dover AFB, where the bodies arrive, that the President or his proxies could periodically attend. That manner of recognition of the sacrifice these men and women made on behalf of his policy would be most appropriate, and is deeply deserved. This is his war, and he ought to be there, once in a while, to mourn the dead.

[World Eater]

I would be happy if anyone from the current administration attended any funerals in the capacity below.

Head of State
Commander of the Armed Forces
President
Private grieving citizen?

[SmackFu]

Doesn't showing up for one funeral piss off the parents of every other soldier who died?

[World Eater]

So it's attend all funerals or none at all?

[musicguy]

Originally posted by RTFirefly

However, that doesn't prevent the military from holding brief memorial services at Dover AFB, where the bodies arrive, that the President or his proxies could periodically attend. That manner of recognition of the sacrifice these men and women made on behalf of his policy would be most appropriate, and is deeply deserved. This is his war, and he ought to be there, once in a while, to mourn the dead.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, if we aren't even allowed to see a picture of a coffin coming home, we sure as hell aren't going to see a picture of Bush standing next to one.

[PhiloVance]

Just to explain, my purpose wasn't so much to say that Bush must attend these funerals, as it was to rant about one more of the never-ending lies that the right seems so good at these days.

[musicguy]

Yes, that probably could have been worded better.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by musicguy
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, if we aren't even allowed to see a picture of a coffin coming home, we sure as hell aren't going to see a picture of Bush standing next to one.

Indeed. I was just trying to dispense with the notion (raised by others) that practical problems somehow prevent Bush from personally honoring the dead of this war. He could do so; he just won't.

[Mr. Moto]

What would be the point of doing so, though. Our country has been at war many times, and the Commander-in-Chief has never participated in public memorial services as a matter of routine. Events like the Gettysburg Address are notable in part because they are rare.

The military's focus in handling the dead is to transport them to their final resting place quickly and respectfully. They generally do so with a minimum of ceremony, reserving such for the final funeral and burial.

There was a story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently of a family who wanted the body of their son returned to Pennsylvania quickly so a joint funeral could be held with his mother, who had also died at about the same time. How would this family have felt if this was prevented by a time delay caused by a memorial service in Delaware?

(Cite is from another paper, since it's free.)

http://www.observer-reporter.com/304642395208096.bsp

[musicguy]

I received a response from Carl Limbacher today. Here is what he told me:

I saw that BBC report/pic too. Read the caption. It wasn't a funeral. It was a memorial service, the kind Bush has repeatedly attended since the Iraq war started.

The media's rap against Bush is that he doesn't attend military funerals - because they know he has attended memorial services and that charge wouldn't stick.

Carl/NM

Interesting. Two points that I have...

First, can someone explain the difference between a memorial service and a funeral. Because what Clinton attended sure looked like a funeral to me. There were caskets and he gave a eulogy. They can call it a memorial service but if it looks like a duck...

Second, I just spend quite a while on Google and cannot find one instance, sans Veteran's Day, of Bush attending any memorial service whatsoever for anyone that has died in the Iraq war. Does anyone else recall this happening? Carl Limbacher suggests that he has been to many of these. You would think that there would be a link to at least one.

[World Eater]

Maybe he can sign up here, so we can rip him a new one.

[musicguy]

World Eater,

I responded to his email. If he writes back, I'll make the suggestion.

Which, by the way, I do give him some credit for responding, even though his information wasn't any more factual than his first remarks. I was still surprised, considering the tone of my letter to him.

[El Gui]

And let's not forget the words of our sincere and noble leader:

"There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. 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"

So George, how many mothers and widows have you hugged today?

[Munch]

Conservatives and veterans constantly remark on how Bush is somehow a man of the people, or is in touch with the pulse of the military. Too bad he's not in touch with the flatline of the military - I might actually have an ounce of respect for him.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by musicguy
Second, I just spend quite a while on Google and cannot find one instance, sans Veteran's Day, of Bush attending any memorial service whatsoever for anyone that has died in the Iraq war. Does anyone else recall this happening? Carl Limbacher suggests that he has been to many of these. You would think that there would be a link to at least one.

I'd try here, at whitehouse.gov/news. Especially try the month-by-month links on the left side of the page. If Bush has been attending memorial services, it should show up there; it seems to list his each and every appearance somewhere.


Oh yeah: a funeral is the service that takes place immediately preceding the burial of the body. In the normal course of things, one funeral is all you get. Memorial services can take place at any place, at any time, and in any quantity.

[London_Calling]

Thank you for that very amusing link, El Gui.

I think Orwell if safe for a while yet.

[musicguy]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Oh yeah: a funeral is the service that takes place immediately preceding the burial of the body. In the normal course of things, one funeral is all you get. Memorial services can take place at any place, at any time, and in any quantity.

First of all, thanks for the link. I didn't think to check there. I will later tonight though.

Concerning the above quote, I agree with your definition. What about the example that I presented of Clinton, in your opinion? It took place 6 days after the people died, the coffins were there, and what the President did was described as a eulogy. Now that sounds like a funeral to me. Yet, Carl Limbacher considers that a memorial because of what the website says. Or maybe, something can be a funeral and a memorial service, which is what I see this as. Hence, Clinton attended a funeral.

[wring]

for me, the only time one would have multiple coffins lined up and call it a funeral is if the people were related. So, for example, there may have been some service for the victims of the Cole, at say Arlington, but funerals IMHO are personal, for the individual victim.