The UN, US and Iraq IV

Sofia wrote:

Bush attends service for families of KIAs.

Is this good enough, or should he have taken the press corps?

I'd like to know what you thought it proved when you thought he hadn't done this--and what it proves now that you see he has?

Thanks Sofia, for the digging.

So he did visit the relatives of some who fell, back in April. That proves the assertion that he "never" done it wrong. (And I really wish I could have found back that article that stated it).

I dont know whether you're asking me, but what I thought it proved if he hadnt ever visited the grieving family members of those he sent into war, as CinC? I thought that would be obvious.

Namely, that here is a President who considers the PR impact of images he might get caught in (President with US flag-covered coffins, bad) much more important than doing the decent thing as CinC - namely, stand up for the men he is responsible for, take his responsibility as commander towards their families, honor them and express his regret, and explain.

Now of course there's probably loads of politicians who accord PR overriding importance, but what the commentators are picking up on is that this President seems to be doing so to the extent of a more systematic "output control" than any before.

You may have even found out yourself when you were digging, how hard it was to find an example like this, how far back you had to go in time, back to the days when Bush still enjoyed 75% vs. 22% aproval rate on Iraq and the PR aspect wasn't all that poignant yet.

Now - before you take me up on that, as you would be right to - and point out that I have no evidence that Bush is no longer doing these things anymore now - after all, I'm just going on Blatham and on an article that I can't find back anymore - I am reserving judgement on that for the moment. You proved he did it once upon a time - others say he doesnt do it (anymore) - but then you proved them wrong on the "never" count, too.

The only way to validate the assertion that Bush is so uptight about media control that he refuses to personally pay honor to those who died on his orders would be to dig further, see if we can find more recent examples. The only way to validate that this proves something would be then to compare with LBJ's times - did LBJ visit the families of those who fell? Did he enforce a stringent no-photographs-with-coffins policy?

I must admit I'm not going to seek all that out ... I'll have to go on the memories and estimations of y'all ...

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Bush attends service for families of KIAs.

Is this good enough, or should he have taken the press corps?

I'd like to know what you thought it proved when you thought he hadn't done this--and what it proves now that you see he has?

Okay, granted, I am certain I'm not up to speed as to all that has gone on in this thread, however, I did check out the site to which Sofia directed everyone and it indeed outlines Bush' comforting of troops.

For me, this began with a post from blatham suggesting that Bush should "...visit some families, perhaps? ..." Now, 2 days later, Sofia has posted such an item showing this was done. However, the response she received from blatham today was, "No, Bush hasn't done what you suggest. He, and his PR staff, continue to ensure that he is not positioned with American body bags, though he is directly responsible for the mangled corpses and dead young people..."

This saddens me because I don't see why it could hurt people of different belief systems to simply be decent enough to give credit where credit is due. It seems that would bring us together rather than perpetuate such acrimony, and, for me, that's a good thing.

Sofia, thank you for the article you posted Exclamation

0 Replies

Sofia,

I distinctly read in the Observer last w/e than Bush had not visited any of the American relatives of those killed or wounded in Iraq. But you have proved me and the Observer WRONG. I'm glad he had enough bottle to face up to the consquences of his actions. Good for Bush (it hurts me to say that) and good for you for correcting a misaprehension.

0 Replies

Hang on a minute. I just re read Blatham's post.

Its a simple question, Has Bush met with families of American dead and wounded in this Iraq conflict, yes or no?

I thought no. Sofia makes a link that seems to prove yes. But what's the truth? Anyone?

0 Replies

Well, it wasn't only the Observer, SPIEGEl and Die Zeit reportes such as well (might be due to the same left sources :wink: ).

Thanks, Sofia, for your hard work!

Steve

Like elsewhere, truth might be in the middle?

0 Replies

Sofia, A good lesson for all of us to temper our misunderstanding on almost anything that has to do with politics and politicians. I was also guilty of thinking that GWBush was a heartless slob. I was mistaken. c.i.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Hang on a minute. I just re read Blatham's post.

Its a simple question, Has Bush met with families of American dead and wounded in this Iraq conflict, yes or no?

I thought no. Sofia makes a link that seems to prove yes. But what's the truth? Anyone?

It would appear that the answer is "Yes":

Quote:

Bush pays respects to sacrifices in Iraq and elsewhere
'The lessons of those who sacrificed'
Monday, October 13, 2003 Posted: 6:00 PM EDT (2200 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- On a day when two U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq, President Bush used a Columbus Day speech to pay tribute to Americans who have died in that war and others.

"That's what's happening today: People are willing to sacrifice for the country they love," Bush said at the White House. "They remember the lessons of September 11, 2001, and so do I."

"It's something we should never forget, especially the lessons of those who sacrificed, for lives lost," Bush said

Bush said he writes a letter to the family of each fallen American soldier and has wept with relatives.

"It is hard," Bush said in an interview with the Dallas-based Belo affiliate services TV network.

"I tell them that I'm sorry that -- about the grief they suffer, and you know, as a dad I can't imagine the grief a mom or dad or a wife or son or daughter must feel," Bush said in the interview. "I try to do the best I can to send our heartfelt condolences, and I also remind them that I believe the sacrifice their child and-or husband or wife has made is in the national interests of our country."

Bush recalled a meeting at Fort Stewart, Georgia, a month ago with relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq.

"I've hugged and cried with, and talked to a room full of families, of loved ones, and I did the best I could do to console them in their grief. And I owe that to those who have suffered," Bush said.

http://us.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/bush.ap/

0 Replies

I guess there is reasonable excuse for confusion on this issue. Bush has NOT attended any funerals. Perhaps that is what blatham was trying to steer his comments toward. He does write letters to the family of every US member killed and he has visited with families but he hasn't attended a funeral ceremony.

0 Replies

Neither has blatham.

0 Replies

Quote:

Slain soldier's mother critical of Bush
Grieving parent slams White House as unappreciative

By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
November 19, 2003

COLORADO SPRINGS - The grieving mother of a Fort Carson soldier killed in Iraq scolded the Bush administration Tuesday for failing to acknowledge her son's sacrifice and those of other soldiers and their families.

Elaine Johnson, the mother of Spc. Darius T. Jennings, said Bush visited her home state of South Carolina last week as the family prepared to bury Jennings but did not visit her family or acknowledge his death.
"On the Monday before I buried my son, he (Bush) was in Greer, S.C., at the BMW plant," Johnson said after a memorial service at Fort Carson for the 22-year-old husband and soldier from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

No one in the administration traveled to their hometown of Cordova to visit, and no one called or wrote to offer condolences, Johnson said.
"Evidently my son wasn't important enough to him dead for him to visit the family or call the family. As long as my son was alive he was important because he sent him over there to fight a war," she said.

Johnson's discontent was the first such public expression from families of Fort Carson casualties. Most families of the 27 who have died said little about the Bush administration, but they voiced support for the war as necessary to free Iraq from an oppressive dictator and safeguard America from terrorism.

Jennings was one of four Fort Carson soldiers killed in the Nov. 2 crash of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter that was carrying them to the Baghdad airport for two-week rest and recuperation leave.

Johnson said some expression of sympathy was the least the administration could do for families who have given their sons and daughters to the war. She says the administration should send someone to every soldier's funeral.

"I feel a representative of this country should have been here to pay their last respects to my son," she said.

The White House issued a statement Tuesday after Johnson spoke.

"The president has said frequently that we are saddened by the loss of any one of our troops who pay the ultimate sacrifice serving our nation," said White House spokesman Jim Morrell.

"As the president has traveled the country, he has met with families of soldiers who have been killed. The president has said that the loss of life is terrible and it is borne especially by the families left behind," he said.

[...]

source: Rocky Mountain News

0 Replies

I won't try to restate Blatham's opinion for him but I remember that I wholly agreed with him that it was stunning (and typical) that Bush chose not to attend any funerals or be seen meeting any arrivals at Dover of dead military for what are clearly PR reasons. Everywhere, at every step of his career, Bush seems to dodge responsibility. To pick a couple of moments off the top of my head, I'd cite his absence from military duty, his delayed reaction to 9/11 followed by his scarpering on AF1, his decision to hide in Camp David and Crawford during various demonstrations in Washington, and now his absence from the tragedies of a war of which he is "commander in chief." This persistent running for cover is in stark contrast to the banners and flight suits and other unconvincing performances staged for media. A quick visit with some relatives of dead boys just doesn't do it for me and shouldn't for you.

0 Replies

Turned out today, that GWB met families of Britons killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11 or 11/9 as we call it.
They were brought to the American Embassy in London to meet him there.
I don't think he will meet any British servicemen's families.

I must say, that although I am not a supporter of George and his works, I thought his speech was good today and that he delivered it well, surprisingly so. His handlers will be well pleased with the way the first day of his visit has gone.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

I won't try to restate Blatham's opinion for him but I remember that I wholly agreed with him that it was stunning (and typical) that Bush chose not to attend any funerals or be seen meeting any arrivals at Dover of dead military for what are clearly PR reasons.

And if you had watched PBS's Reporting America at War You'd have discovered that the official policy of NOT going to Dover AFB and meeting the planes as they arrived was a creation of the Clinton Administration and has been carried on by Bush and why that is so.

0 Replies

An official letter of condolence probably goes out to each family. [They managed that in WW1].

Bush clearly has met some families, but probably only those vetted and assured not to ask any pointed questions or pose any threat of embarrassment for the Commander in Chief.

0 Replies

Fishin' -- Once again Bush supporters defend Bush by comparing him to Clinton -- a standard they once thought was too low for comparison now turns out to be quite handy! Can't Bush stand on his own two feet for once?

0 Replies

Bodies of dead servicemen arrive home

June 27, 1996
Web posted at: 3:00 p.m. EDT (1900 GMT)
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, Delaware (CNN) -- The mood was somber at Dover Air Force Base Thursday as the bodies of 19 American servicemen killed in Saudi Arabia's deadliest terror attack arrived home.
Grieving family members and top military officials gathered at the base, where they mourned during a private ceremony immediately after the plane landed.
Many of the servicemen had been scheduled to return home on military leave this week.
"I received a Father's Day card from him saying he would be coming home," said Ted Fennig, who was hoping to go fishing with his son, Tech. Sgt. Patrick Fennig.
Officials said the transport plane landed safely about 11:30 a.m. EDT (1530 GMT) after flying the bodies from Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. An American flag was draped over each casket; 11 of the men have been identified.
Memorial services are scheduled for Sunday at Eglin Air Force Base in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, and Patrick Air Force Base in Cocoa Beach, Florida.

President Clinton will attend, cutting short his trip to France, where he is attending a summit with six other industrial nations.

Earlier Thursday, Clinton urged the G-7 powers to fight terrorist attacks: "We must join together to face down a new threat to our freedom," he said. The nations were expected to act on U.S. proposals for fighting terrorism and other world violence.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/27/saudi.bombing2/

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Fishin' -- Once again Bush supporters defend Bush by comparing him to Clinton -- a standard they once thought was too low for comparison now turns out to be quite handy! Can't Bush stand on his own two feet for once?

And once again you shoot your mouth off without reading what was written. What I said was the policy was created under Clinton and continued under Bush and that the show explains why. There is no comparison made between the two but as usual you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion and are so busy trying to prove what a terrible person Bush is that you can't even be bothered to read what others post.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Bush clearly has met some families, but probably only those vetted and assured not to ask any pointed questions or pose any threat of embarrassment for the Commander in Chief.

Do you know that to be true? Are you suggesting they are more concerned about such things than other politicians? Or are you just spouting off?

0 Replies

From the Washington Post

Quote:

Bush bans coverage of U.S. corpses arriving from Iraq
by Dana Milbank, Washington Post

So you see, he not only doesn't want to be there, he doesn't want you to "be there" either. And this is the guy who says he wants to export democracy... When I last checked, democracy was based on an informed electorate...

0 Replies

I wrote

Quote:

Bush clearly has met some families, but probably only those vetted and assured not to ask any pointed questions or pose any threat of embarrassment for the Commander in Chief.

George wrote

Quote:

Do you know that to be true? Are you suggesting they are more concerned about such things than other politicians? Or are you just spouting off?

which bit? the "...met some families...", or the "...only those vetted..."

I used the words clearly and probably, to indicate what I thought was fact, and what was my opinion.

It can't be easy for anyone to face the stark reality of the consequences of their actions when those consequences are in coffins. But it must be easier if you are truly convinced there was no alternative, and in the rightness of the cause. It must take some sort of psychopath to weep with the bereaved, knowing there was an alternative.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know