Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (503101)	12/3/2003 4:20:23 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

PRESIDENTS ATTENDING FUNERALS A reader has answered the call, and sent in this site which answers the question I posed earlier -- have presidents really attended the funerals of individual soldiers? And, as I have been arguing all along, it looks as if the answer is in fact no. hnn.us There are three exceptions noted here (except for the fact that President Bush, 41's spokesman claims he did attend such funerals, while the historical record, as well as my own memory, contradict him. Wouldn't there be some record indicating such an event? If you've ever looked at Public Papers of the Presidents it's awfully hard to imagine something like this took place without there being a record of it.) The first exception involves the son of a senior staffer, an obviously highly unusual circumstance where the President knew the family, and the second a situation where the President had met the soldier in question (although frankly I am still surprised by it. It still seems both awkward and inappropriate to me.) (This site mentions President Nixon meeting the family of what looks to be the last casualty of the Vietnam war, not only a particularly tragic loss, but an exception that would have proven my rule, in effect -- that the President cannot attend funerals while a war is on-going. Well, at that point the war was no longer on-going, was it? And apparently he did not even go so far as to attend the funeral. This President, note, has been meeting families all along. Something that would not violate any of my symbolic objections.) All other exceptions fit in the category I keep mentioning where there are large losses taken in a single event, where the President symbolically stands in for the American people and becomes our representative to a moment of collective loss as, for example, he did at the memorial for the Shuttle astronauts or President Clinton did, as mentioned here, for the Memorial after Oklahoma City. He is then, not representing himself as Commander in Chief but becomes, literally, Mourner in Chief, not what the critics are asking of this President right now. But I have a feeling this is not going to slow the criticism down any. rantingprofs.typepad.com

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (503101)	12/3/2003 4:30:16 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The press is trying to gin up a particularly insidious scandal against President Bush, claiming that he doesn't appreciate the sacrifices of U.S. troops in Iraq because he hasn't attended any military funerals. Media rhetoric on this subject has become particularly toxic of late. New York Times columnist Frank Rich got the ball rolling last week when he complained to CNN that the White House knows how images of Bush attending military funerals would "speak more than 1,000 words, and they want to censor them, basically." Not to be outdone, the Times' Maureen Dowd carped sarcastically on Sunday: "It's understandable why, going into his reelection campaign, Mr. Bush wouldn't want to underscore that young Americans keep getting whacked over there, and we don't know who is doing it or how to stop it." Tuesday morning, "Today Show" host Katie Couric chose to commemorate Veteran's Day by grilling Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers about the Bush administration's decision not to permit coverage of bodies arriving at Dover Air Force Base. "The policies in effect at Dover go back to 1991 and have been consistent since then through three administrations now," Gen. Myers explained. "What it's really about is proper dignity and respect, and not making a spectacle of all returning heroes such as those that have fallen." The pundit class' sensitivity to the issue of whether a president is attending enough military funerals is a relatively new phenomenon. Though casualty rates during the Clinton years never approached the levels now being sustained in Iraq, combat deaths weren't exactly unheard of. They included eighteen U.S. Army Rangers killed in Somalia in 1993, nineteen U.S. airmen killed in the 1996 Khobar Towers barracks bombing, four soldiers dead in Haiti [suicides, the White House insisted] and 17 Navy men and women killed in the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. 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. It's not that the ex-president was funeral-averse. In fact, his notorious "I-feel-your-pain" style earned him the moniker of "Mourner-in-Chief" in some quarters, especially after his performance at the Oklahoma City bombing memorial service in 1995. And while we could find no record of Clinton attending funerals of the soldiers he sent into harm's way, he never seemed to miss a funeral for one of his fundraisers - attending services for big-bucks donor Larry Lawrence and even speaking at the funeral of the father of mega-fundraiser-turned-DNC chief Terry McAuliffe. Then there was Clinton's bravura performance at the 1996 funeral of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, where cameras caught the Commander-in-Chief laughing before he noticed he was being videotaped - at which point he lapsed into-full-blown lip-biting mourning mode. At the time, the establishment press dutifully pretended not to notice Clinton's Brown funeral antics.