Manny
It is possible, I suppose, that a participant in this thread might be worthy to name as arbiter of correct SDMB comportment and decorum. Probably isn’t me. Damn sure ain’t you.
I am relieved to learn that W has met with families of the dead.
The abstract that Manny linked to bears notice; I trust that it falls under fair use:
So, if I understand this correctly, Bush has broken tradition by not attending any funerals and directing the Pentagon to ban the press from photographing body bags arriving at Dover Air Force Base. Still, I can understand his predicament, although I am uneasy with this change in protocol.
I am not sure whether W has visited with families of the wounded. He may have; IMHO, he should. Although since I have not served in the military, I confess that my opinion on this matter should weigh less than that of say Airman, Monty, or Beagle.
Or me.
I don’t think the private letters mean much. He needs to make some more public acknowledgement of the casualties…and the ban on photographing coffins at Dover is just chickenshit.
Fwiw, I’ve only looked at two British papers but both make the point Bush hasn’t attended “a single funeral”.
Guardian article (republished):
Bush has not attended the funeral of a single soldier slain in the war and refers to the casualties only in general terms.
Two things from one article:
“ Quite how his meeting the families of British servicemen killed in Iraq will be perceived at home is unclear: the President has not attended the funerals of any of the American troops killed. Nor has he visited any of the thousands of injured troops who have returned to the US. “
And:
*” The names have not been officially revealed but two of the invited families have come forward to talk exclusively to the IoS, saying they will challenge the US President to explain why he went to war without a United Nations mandate and why no chemical and biological weapons have been found.
Lianne Seymour, whose husband, Commando Ian Seymour, was killed in a helicopter crash at the outbreak of the war, welcomed the chance to meet Mr Bush. But she dismissed his claim that the 53 Britons killed so far in Iraq had died in a good cause. She said: "Bush has been suggesting that he’s going to put our minds at rest. He suggests our husbands’ lives weren’t lost in vain. However, I’m going to challenge him on it.
“They misled the guys going out there. You can’t just do something wrong and hope you find a good reason for it later. That’s why we have all the UN guidelines in the first place.””*
YMMV
- It’s going to be a public relations disaster for both of them, but especially for Bush.
Hey, Reeder has come a long way. At least he posts these rants in the Pit now. This ain’t Great Debate, guys. I say let him rant his heart out in the forum as much he wants.
Um, Reeder, did you hear that Bush leaves the toilet seat up all the time? OH MY GOD!!!
flowbark: Whether someone’s served or not has no bearing on their opinion of this issue.
DtC: Maybe, & I’m guessing here, the president’s trying to maintain some dignity for the dead and giving the families of the dead some consideration.
True enough. The alternative explanation would be that, for political reasons, he is advised to call as little attention as possible to the unfortunate facts. The same instinct that leads to “body bags” euphemized into “transit tubes”. An instinct common to politicians and thier attendant lampreys.
So, where did Reeder go, anyway? It makes sense that he bugged out, but where’s that admission of dishonesty that I asked for?
More proof, if any more was actually needed, that Reeder has no integrity.
At least he’s not the leader of the free world !
I wonder how many Presidents have attended private funerals of soldiers killed. I don’t ask that likely, because I think that he would be strongly dissuaded from doing so by his staff.
Not for the simple reasons, but for more complex ones.
-
If a president attends the funeral of any one soldier, then other soldiers families may believe that their son or daughter also deserves the same thing.
-
As a practical matter, he would be attending funerals every day or nearly every day, sometimes mutliple funerals on completely different coasts.
-
It’s going to be a nightmare security wise. You want to see upset? How bout when the Secret Service frisks the mom burying her son before allowing her to sit near him.
I dunno… brings me back to the earlier question… did former Presidents spend their time at Funerals for individual soldiers?
Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: About the letters… I think that whether you like or hate Bush, you have to give him a little credit for doing this. It’s something that truly indicates that this person was of consequence, and that their sacrifice is not forgotten by their leadership. It means a lot to most families to know that.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’m not sure how meaningful it is to receive what is essentially a form letter from the President.
I mean sheesh, I have a small stack of letters from my various Representatives thanking me for “sharing my concerns” with them. I’m glad they have a system for replying to their constituents, but I don’t exactly laud them for their efforts.
According to this website, Presidential public acknowledgements of our troops’ sacrifices are more common than actual attendance of funerals.
Nonetheless, Johnson attended 2 soldier’s funerals, Nixon met with the family of one soldier after the young man was buried at Arlington, Carter attended a memorial service, Reagan attended several memorial services, Bush Sr. is unclear, and Clinton attended a service in memory of the 17 soldiers who died in the Cole terrorist attack.
The great poet and philosopher Roger Waters had this to say regarding these letters:
I would have an easier time believing that if this administration had not already shown itself to be so damned politically calculating in everything it does. I think that Bush has been reckless with the lives of these soldiers and that he needs to make some more public acknowledgements of the damage which has been done. I don’t think he has to go to funerals or name names, necessarily but I also don’t think it’s appropriate for him to avoid a public discussion of those losses.
Banning the photography of coffins at Dover was not done to protect privacy. There is nothing intimate or personal about the sight of wooden boxes. It was done because the WH doesn’t want that image to be associated with Bush.
I don’t even know how much of this avoidance is Bush’s doing and how much of it is Rove’s but those coffins are starting to morph into a pretty large pink elephant and GWB is going to have to talk about them whether he likes it or not.
Finally we have some figures on UK public opinion, and they’re not looking good for the visit.
According to a Sunday Times-YouGov poll, 60% of Britons consider GWB to be a “Danger to world peace”.
53% of Britons sympathise with the protestors, versus 41% who don’t.
Only 7% consider GWB a “Good world leader”, and 6% think him “articulate”. 37% consider him “stupid”, and 33% “incoherent”.
The only surprise to me in the survey is that the right vs. wrong opinion on the US/UK Iraq invasion is 45% against, and 43% pro.
So if you see on the news that a “handful of troublemakers” (or the like) are protesting, please remember that what’s going to be played out on the streets of London next week is truly a reflection of public opinion.
And you know all that for a fact exactly how, DtC? Your assertions are as much a guess as my guess.
Our British friends are absolutely correct. Americans ain’t got enough lese majeste.
Hell, we don’t even have a majeste.
By the way, who or what is it this time that Bonny Prince Charles is supposed to have had sex with that the papers aren’t allowed to report on?
Cheerleaders? Goats? Mince pies?
Well…it seems he has. I guess my search didn’t go back 8 months. I stand corrected.
Christ on a crutch Reeder. I guess since no one else seems to be around to commend you for a classy retraction, I will.
december was never so amenable to the sweet light of reason.