How Bush has stayed away from soldiers' funerals :
More than 2,290 US troops have been killed in Iraq. President George Bush has attended none of the funerals - for which he is often criticised by the families of those who have died.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12125.htm
Full Version: How Bush has stayed away from soldiers' funerals
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
It's not just a river in Egypt.
Hate to sound like I'm defendin' the President, but methinks the author of this article musta forgot two very important pieces of information. Those two omissions IMHO taint the whole article.
When Andrew Buncombe says "President George Bush has attended none of the funerals - for which he is often criticised by the families of those who have died" methinks they neglect to mention somethin' very important. If I ain't mistaken, no president has attended the funeral of a military member who died in action since President Reagan. President Clinton did attend the memorial service in Norfolk for those who died in the bombin' of the USS Cole, but the media made the story 'bout him and tended to ignore those who died, thus demonstratin' that maybe this ain't such a bad policy, eh?
Also, when Buncombe writes "The President has also been criticised for refusing to allow the media to photograph soldiers' coffins being flown back from Iraq" 'twould seem he neglects to mention that this is a policy initiated durin' the administration of President Clinton in, I believe, 1992. Methinks 'tis important to consider this when tossin' 'round factoids.
Methinks we've discussed both these issues plenty here on CGCS in the past. IMHO those who've served understand the policies as a means to show and maintain dignity, respect and the privacy of those who've fallen and their families. Seems to me that those against these policies are more for usin' it as a wedge issue than for any other purpose. The tone of the article and these glarin' omissions methinks indicate where the author, Andrew Buncombe, falls in this category.
When Andrew Buncombe says "President George Bush has attended none of the funerals - for which he is often criticised by the families of those who have died" methinks they neglect to mention somethin' very important. If I ain't mistaken, no president has attended the funeral of a military member who died in action since President Reagan. President Clinton did attend the memorial service in Norfolk for those who died in the bombin' of the USS Cole, but the media made the story 'bout him and tended to ignore those who died, thus demonstratin' that maybe this ain't such a bad policy, eh?
Also, when Buncombe writes "The President has also been criticised for refusing to allow the media to photograph soldiers' coffins being flown back from Iraq" 'twould seem he neglects to mention that this is a policy initiated durin' the administration of President Clinton in, I believe, 1992. Methinks 'tis important to consider this when tossin' 'round factoids.
Methinks we've discussed both these issues plenty here on CGCS in the past. IMHO those who've served understand the policies as a means to show and maintain dignity, respect and the privacy of those who've fallen and their families. Seems to me that those against these policies are more for usin' it as a wedge issue than for any other purpose. The tone of the article and these glarin' omissions methinks indicate where the author, Andrew Buncombe, falls in this category.
Playing politics with the death of a single service man is the real news Mr. Buncombe.
Let's not do this sort of stuff. If you want to play politics with the death of someone in the service of my country I'll come find you, rip you head off, and take a dump down your neck.
Let's not do this sort of stuff. If you want to play politics with the death of someone in the service of my country I'll come find you, rip you head off, and take a dump down your neck.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Mar 1 2006, 08:19 PM)
How Bush has stayed away from soldiers' funerals :
More than 2,290 US troops have been killed in Iraq. President George Bush has attended none of the funerals - for which he is often criticised by the families of those who have died.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12125.htm
More than 2,290 US troops have been killed in Iraq. President George Bush has attended none of the funerals - for which he is often criticised by the families of those who have died.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12125.htm
QUOTE(flydangler @ Mar 2 2006, 03:39 AM)
Hate to sound like I'm defendin' the President, but methinks the author of this article musta forgot two very important pieces of information. Those two omissions IMHO taint the whole article.
When Andrew Buncombe says "President George Bush has attended none of the funerals - for which he is often criticised by the families of those who have died" methinks they neglect to mention somethin' very important. If I ain't mistaken, no president has attended the funeral of a military member who died in action since President Reagan. President Clinton did attend the memorial service in Norfolk for those who died in the bombin' of the USS Cole, but the media made the story 'bout him and tended to ignore those who died, thus demonstratin' that maybe this ain't such a bad policy, eh?
Also, when Buncombe writes "The President has also been criticised for refusing to allow the media to photograph soldiers' coffins being flown back from Iraq" 'twould seem he neglects to mention that this is a policy initiated durin' the administration of President Clinton in, I believe, 1992. Methinks 'tis important to consider this when tossin' 'round factoids.
Methinks we've discussed both these issues plenty here on CGCS in the past. IMHO those who've served understand the policies as a means to show and maintain dignity, respect and the privacy of those who've fallen and their families. Seems to me that those against these policies are more for usin' it as a wedge issue than for any other purpose. The tone of the article and these glarin' omissions methinks indicate where the author, Andrew Buncombe, falls in this category.
When Andrew Buncombe says "President George Bush has attended none of the funerals - for which he is often criticised by the families of those who have died" methinks they neglect to mention somethin' very important. If I ain't mistaken, no president has attended the funeral of a military member who died in action since President Reagan. President Clinton did attend the memorial service in Norfolk for those who died in the bombin' of the USS Cole, but the media made the story 'bout him and tended to ignore those who died, thus demonstratin' that maybe this ain't such a bad policy, eh?
Also, when Buncombe writes "The President has also been criticised for refusing to allow the media to photograph soldiers' coffins being flown back from Iraq" 'twould seem he neglects to mention that this is a policy initiated durin' the administration of President Clinton in, I believe, 1992. Methinks 'tis important to consider this when tossin' 'round factoids.
Methinks we've discussed both these issues plenty here on CGCS in the past. IMHO those who've served understand the policies as a means to show and maintain dignity, respect and the privacy of those who've fallen and their families. Seems to me that those against these policies are more for usin' it as a wedge issue than for any other purpose. The tone of the article and these glarin' omissions methinks indicate where the author, Andrew Buncombe, falls in this category.
QUOTE(Marine @ Mar 2 2006, 05:03 AM)
Playing politics with the death of a single service man is the real news Mr. Buncombe.
Let's not do this sort of stuff. If you want to play politics with the death of someone in the service of my country I'll come find you, rip you head off, and take a dump down your neck.
Let's not do this sort of stuff. If you want to play politics with the death of someone in the service of my country I'll come find you, rip you head off, and take a dump down your neck.
Although not having been a Marine and therefore not having 'issues' about where to take a dump, I've gotta weigh in with m' two fellow ol' farts here, Snuff- and Doc is right: we discussed this a few weeks ago. The three of us got into a bit of a tussle over it, and I've come to agree with their side of the aisle. (Besides, it's the only way the welts and bruises all over my bodywill ever heal)
I had a link and response posted on the second thread you had opened with the same title, but it looks like that one got deleted 'cause I can't even find my response. The link was about what Presidents have done in memorium and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that any President has attended an individual soldier's funeral- for basically the reasons articulated by Marine. Having just been through one myself, it would be too much of a public distraction for an event that is painfully private.
What virtually every President since Adams has done, however, is create or attend some type of memorial ceremony for those soldiers, sailors, and marines who have died in combat while on his watch as Commander in Chief. That has not been done on this chickenhawk coward's watch because he doesn't care. It seems the only memorial services this bastard has attended is Memorial and Veterans Day, which is more or less a required ritual for all Presidents.
I can't comdemn Shrub for not attending something like a private ceremony, but it is nonetheless a travesty that he has shown such contempt for the men and women he has ordered to their death.
I think it might be a good idea for the recruiting staff that signed up these volunteers to at least send an envoy. Anyone in an officer's uniform would probably suffice, especially if they brought even a machine-signed condolence letter from the US government.
IMO, the thousands upon thousands of dead and maimed in this ill-conceived debacle are STILL considered collateral damage by this administration. Like having a flat tire once every ten years or so, they're considered nuisances.
IMO, the thousands upon thousands of dead and maimed in this ill-conceived debacle are STILL considered collateral damage by this administration. Like having a flat tire once every ten years or so, they're considered nuisances.
QUOTE(grammydidi @ Mar 4 2006, 05:57 AM)
I think it might be a good idea for the recruiting staff that signed up these volunteers to at least send an envoy. Anyone in an officer's uniform would probably suffice, especially if they brought even a machine-signed condolence letter from the US government.
Methinks you know very little 'bout the military funerals offered to the families of those who've served, eh? An honor guard and full military honors are offered to each and every one, includin' those who've been killed in Iraq.Methinks I've posted the particulars before, but 'twould seem some haven't paid attention. For them who're actually interested, and not just lookin' for another chance to take a jab at anyone for political reasons this site should provide any info you're lookin' for, eh? As discussed in other threads in the past, the military services try to provide much more than these minimums required by law.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.