This is how Bush honors our soliders?

[D2bets]

The President has yet to attend to single funeral for a fallen American soldier. Of course he did for a British solider. Real smooth. The President's directive is no arrival cermeonies and no media coverage of deceased soliders. Instead, bring them back in the dark of night to avoid media coverage at all costs that would honor the deceased. Remind anyone of anything? Try Vietnam. If ya can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If this war was such a great idea and is worth fighting for, then why is the President so embarrassed by its bravest men and women.

"Part of being a leader is facing the consequences of your actions, no matter how hard or painful that is. President Bush owes more to the families of our soldiers. (Gen. Wesley Clark 11/23/03)"

 

[Phaedrus]

Yeah, I was wondering if W. really thought no one was going to notice that, the son of a bitch.


Phaedrus

 

[Oceans11]

Are you sure?

I know he laid a wreath at the unknown soldiers tomb, and met relatives of soldiers lost in Iraq.
I haven't seen anything about him attending a funeral though.

 

[Phaedrus]

Story at AlterNet on the matter. Not exactly an unbiased source mind you, but the facts of the matter remain the same regardless of one's motivations in reporting them.


Phaedrus

 

[allstar4089]

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[GrandSlam+]

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If Bush shows up at a funeral for a fallen soldier, the media would be all over him for making a funeral into a public spectacle/photo op. A president, no matter what party, typically pays his respects privately to the victims' family. Memorial Day and Veteran's day are usually the times when a President pays public respect to the soldiers, as Bush and Clinton have done. The media would like to be able to attend/film military funerals. This is absurd. Most families, facing the toughest sacrifice made, would be incensed at the invasion of privacy. I have 3 relatives currently in Iraq (though one is home for two weeks); if one is KIA, I certainly don't need a reporter sticking a microphone in my face at the service asking "how do I feel?"

Presidents rarely attend funerals killed in combat. LBJ went to two; the son of White House correspondent, and another for a close friend. Nixon didn't go to any. Carter went to a memorial for the soldiers killed in the hostage rescue attempt. Reagan attended memorial services for those killed in the Beirut bombing and the USS Stark attack. Bush 1 didn't attend one. Clinton went to a service for the sailors killed in the USS Cole attack, but no others.

It isn't a big deal unless you are desperate to attack Bush.

 

[Phaedrus]

GrandSlam

You make a good point about the lack of precedent for presidents attending soldiers' funerals; however I think that there is real insensitivity shown by Bush by attending the British funeral and not any American ones -- not just because he should attend funerals of American soldiers, but because it makes his attendance in Britain look like a cheap political capital ploy. That procedure was allowed media coverage, naturally.

I do not know of a single incident in military or other history of the media making a circus out of a funeral (feel free to correct me here, but not one comes to mind.) In any case it would be easy for any family member to have media participants removed or even arrested if they were not welcomed at the procession.

Additionally, it is traditional for the heads of respective states to attend the funeral services of fallen Guardsmen from their state. President Bush did not attend the funeral of D.C. Guardsman Spec. Darryl Dent, and the sitting president is the official commander-in-chief of the D.C. Guard. As of the press time of the above story, Bush had not sent so much as a consoling e-mail to the family, despite the fact that the funeral was held within walking distance of the White House and that Dent's death -- as the only D.C. guardsman killed in Iraq up to that point -- made local newspaper and television news.

Yes, he's a very busy man, President Bush. Very busy indeed. I am not "desperate to attack" the president as you say; this is not even intended as an attack on the man -- just a sign that in addition to being an idiot, a failure and a traitor, that he also lacks basic manners and good taste.


Phaedrus

 

[PatPatriot]

GS...Desperate to attack Bush they are.
Thank your relitives for their service for me.

Wait till the spinless democrats pick on Bush for having thanksgiving in Baghdad.

All these fxckinassholes do is critisize...but none of them have another solution.At least Bush has shown leadership...I noticed that you mentioned Clinton going to funerals of the USS Cole.I wonder if he ever thought the country and the world would have been better served if he went after the murdering terroist who bombed the ship???Oh thats right why would he, he didn't go after or even visit the world Trade center the FIRST time it was bombed.

 

[PatPatriot]

Thursday Nov. 27, 2003; 10:28 p.m. EST
Bush Thrills Troops, Hillary Doesn't

While 600 G.I.s leapt to their feet at the sight of President Bush appearing onstage in Baghdad to praise their service and share their Thanksgiving, soldiers at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan seemed considerably less enthusiastic to have New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in their midst.

"The G.I.s here at the Bagram base were reasonably excited, I think it's fair to say, to see the former first lady," reported Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera.

But in the next breath Rivera added, "They were even more impressed with their turkey dinner."

An African-American female G.I. seconded the Fox reporter's assessment, agreeing that the food was more of a morale booster than Mrs. Clinton. Another female soldier at the table concurred.

Meanwhile, back in Baghdad soldiers couldn't say enough about their encounter with their Commander-in-Chief.

"I was totally shocked," one female G.I. told Fox News. "It was a wonderful moment. I think everyone there was so overjoyed just to see the president."

A male soldier told Fox that Bush's visit "really meant a lot to me personally, as I know it did to a lot of the other soldiers, that the Commander-in-Chief was here in person to talk to us on this day when he should be with his family . . . And here in Iraq, the first time ever that a U.S. president's been here."

The New York Democrat has lately taken to accusing President Bush of not appreciating soldiers' sacrifices, and even covering-up battlefield casualties.

Three weeks ago Sen. Clinton secretly visited wounded soliders at Walter Reed Army Hospital, then told Democrats gathered in Iowa that the troops she met were paying the price for Bush's "failed policy" in Iraq.

Clinton also has a spot airing on MSNBC this weekend where she delivers a Thanksgiving message of appreciation to the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Editor's note:

 

[GrandSlam+]

Phaedrus, The column quoted by you, while pretending to show pity for the family, used the funeral as a springboard to attack Bush on 1)the war 2) fundraising 3) his jogging 4) landing on the aircraft carrier 5) tax cuts 6) DC being disenfranchised 7) not giving better health care for veterans, and 8) using DC as a political prop.

That is likely a major reason why Presidents don't go to military funerals. The columnist used Darryl Dent's death, as well as his family's anger and grief, as a tool to attack Bush. Shouldn't you be a bit offended by that?

 

[Phaedrus]

Grand Slam

Malloy is a fruitcake race appeaser, no doubt doubt about it. I only cited the article as a reference to the incident. I try to draw sources from as broad a base as possible, and this will sometimes include ultra-left and ultra-right op-eds. Not my fault the world is full of assholes.


Phaedrus

 

[D2bets]

The bigger issue than the funerals is the Presidential directive "that there will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Rammstein Air Base or Dover base". This is the President's policy and it's reminiscent of the treatment of dead soliders from Vietnam. Why no arrival cermonies? Why no media coverage? Easy. It would remind people that soliders are dying by the dozen. It would remind them of what is REALLY happening. Anytime something like this is done to try to mute what is really happening then you know something is wrong. Like I said, if this war is so worth fighting then people won't be overly distressed by the truth of the dead.

 

[GrandSlam+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
The bigger issue than the funerals is the Presidential directive "that there will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Rammstein Air Base or Dover base". This is the President's policy and it's reminiscent of the treatment of dead soliders from Vietnam. Why no arrival cermonies? Why no media coverage? Easy. It would remind people that soliders are dying by the dozen. It would remind them of what is REALLY happening. Anytime something like this is done to try to mute what is really happening then you know something is wrong. Like I said, if this war is so worth fighting then people won't be overly distressed by the truth of the dead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



D2, you likely already know these facts, but I'll repeat them anyway since you seem to be ignoring them. Dover Air Force base, where most of the dead are returned home, has had this policy restricting the media in place for over 10 years. The Pentagon, during the Clinton administration, made this policy standard for every military base. That is why we didn't see photos of the 18 soldiers killed in Somalia, or other American soldiers killed in Yemen, Haiti or Bosnia. We did see some coffin photos of those killed in Afghanistan, but that likely was due to ignorance of the policy or fear of a lawsuit making its way through the courts challenging the right to restrict the media. When the case was decided in favor of the military, the Pentegon issued new orders reaffirming the media restrictions.

I know the left is going nuts hoping to use dead soldiers to score political points against Bush, but previous administrations get the blame in this case. Of course, that certainly won't stop the left from "sticking up for the fighting man" will it?

 

[D2bets]

GS, I believe you are mistaken about that. Do you have some link about what you're saying? At the very least, I believe whatever policy was in place has been expanded for this war. The Admin. has gone to unusual lengths to avoid media coverage of the deceased soldiers.

 

[GrandSlam+]

D2, I wish you would do some of your own research outside the "I Hate Bush" websites.

Here is the link:

http://www.dod.mil/news/Oct2003/n10292003_2003102910.html

This is part of the article:

"The loss of a loved one is the worst thing a family has to deal with, Falk said, and the Defense Department's goal is to respect the privacy and wishes of service members' families.

"It's a time of grief, of loss. The families are in shock, in disbelief," she added. "Over the years, the families have told us that their privacy is very important. They don't want to see on TV a casket that might contain their loved one's remains before they've had a chance to grieve."

Out of respect for families' privacy, defense officials do not allow arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Dover Air Force Base or Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, or any other site where remains are transferred.

All four service branches participated in the formulation of this policy, said Mark Ward, senior policy advisor for casualty, mortuary and funeral honors. "It was based solely on protecting and keeping the considerations and concerns of the families," he said.

The Carson Center is a mortuary, Falk said, and it is inappropriate for media to be at a mortuary.

"The mission of a mortuary is to prepare remains with dignity, care and respect," she added. "If we expose that process to the media we lose that."

The Defense Department policy has been in effect since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Falk said. Defense officials reissued the policy in November 2001 at the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, and again in March 2003 to cover all military operations.

During Operation Desert Storm, some media and other organizations challenged this policy, claiming the First Amendment allowed them access to Dover. However, the courts supported the policy, and in 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the decision.

The court's decision was based on reducing the hardship of families and friends of the deceased, who may feel obligated to travel great distances to attend arrival ceremonies if such ceremonies were held, Falk said.

"To expose a loved one's casket or themselves to the media is a '180' from the respect that we owe that family," she added."