Assuming the op-ed is correct and past war-time presidents have attended funerals, is this be a compelling enough for Bush to do likewise?
Not to defend him too much (because I’m not a fan, believe me), but Dubya may have good reason not to attend soldiers’ funerals. Imagine the media blitz that would happen if he showed up to one, messing up the somber mood of the ceremony and displacing attention away from the deceased. Also, he would get attacked–just as he was on Thanksgiving–for exploiting the moment for political gain. We all know this would happen.
But from the perspective of the mourning families, though, they may feel like their sons and daughters were brave enough to die for their country. Surely the president could be brave enough to weather the political criticism and do what is right.
I don’t really know how I feel (it seems like I’m getting more and more ambivalent lately). Ultimately it’s not that important. People will continue to die either way. But I understand the importance of symbolic gestures. I don’t see a problem with Bush attending at least one funeral, especially when he says things like:
*There’s only one person who is responsible for making that decision, and that’s me. And there’s only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids on the death of their loved ones. 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."
George W Bush to Barbara Walters, ABC “20/20,” 12/13/02*
Is this really a glaring faux paus on Bush’s part? Should he do anything in response to the criticism?
There was an excellent op-ed piece in the LAtimes a few weeks back written by a former speechwriter for Reagan. He discussed Reagan’s attendance at the funeral for the Marines killed in the Beirut bombing. Said Bush should attend at least a few of 'em.
“From Lincoln at Gettysburg…” Lincoln attended the service consecrating the graveyard. He did not attend the funeral of every, or to my knowledge any, Union (or Confederate) soldier who died there. Logistically, it was not possible for him to do. No one then thought it was Lincoln’s duty to go to ordinary soldiers’ services. He had a war to win, after all.
As for GWB, while I’d much rather have him attending funerals than fundraisers, I don’t think it is the Commander in Chief’s duty to necessarily attend the funerals of soldiers. I’m not in favor of Bush’s policies or of his re-election, but criticizing him for not attending funerals is a cheap shot.
According to this article, the information about Presidents attending military funerals is exaggerated. During Vietnam, LBJ attended only two funerals and Nixon did not attend any.
While it does seem important that Bush should attend one or two funerals as a symbolic gesture, the criticism seems like an unwarranted attack to me. Historically, Presidents have not appeared at the funerals of individual soldiers as much as they have for memorials with “bigger” symbolic importance, like Clinton’s appearance at the memorial for the USS Cole or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. As the article states, these events give them better opportunity to use the pulpit for their political agendas.
Were I the president, I’d be hard pressed to know if attending a few would be an insult to the families of those whose funerals I didn’t attend. I agree that a large scale cerimony honoring all the dead is the way to go. And with casualties still pretty much a daily occurance, it’s too early. He should, at some point in the future, do something respectfully symbolic to honor the war dead.
The second he goes to one funeral, people will start bitching that he doesn’t go to every funeral. Or they’ll bitch about how he’s just going to make himself look good, get re-elected and continue taking over the world in his evil plot for conservative Republican domination so his dad can bring in the Iluminati. The man can’t win no matter what he does. I don’t think he should respond to the criticism because those who are criticizing will do it no matter what. There’s no point.
There are many things wrong with this suggestion, I’m sure, which is why it isn’t really serious, just the first thing that popped into my head when I read the thread title:
I’m sure it would go a long way towards prevention of declarations of war if was required that the ‘leader’ of a country was required by law to attend the funeral of each and every person killed in a war that they declare.
If your son, husband or brother had been killed in Iraq, would you want his funeral turned into a media circus? Imagine trying to bury your loved one and being surrounded by reporters asking you how it feels to have the President at the funeral. Hell, imagine the secret service searching every mourner attending the funeral.
Sadly, it’s all about the bitching these days. No one gives any thought beyond, “Oh, this one will sounds great. I’ll make my political enemy sound like a real prick by saying this”.