"The place where valor sleeps".
President Bush paid tribute today at Arlington National Cemetary to all those who have died in service to our country, giving special consideration to the men and women killed in action after 9/11.
Since the President first called our armed forces into battle following the terrorist attacks of 2001 he has been heavily criticized in quite a few circles for not attending a single individual funeral service for US personnel KIA in Iraq or Afghanistan. And since I am no fan of President Bush this was something that, initially, I latched on to and said "Ahah! Another example of his disregard for human life!" It's not that simple, though.
Looking back at how other wartime Presidents handled this extremely touchy issue reveals a disparity in how Chief Executives handled this part of their job. Here is an excellent look, written in 2004, on the manner.
Lyndon Johnson attended more than a few services for soldiers killed in Vietnam, some of whom he knew personally, and took the loss of life very hard. This almost certainly (both his emotional devastation at the loss of US lives as well as his sense that the war could not be won) contributed to his decision not to seek re-election. Woodrow Wilson, known as an emotional man, also took services hard for soldiers killed in the First World War, and probably would have been best advised to not attend any, if the example cited by Mr. Baker above is representative.
Franklin Roosevelt did not attend individual services during WWII, but, as with all Presidents, attended general memorial services. The same with Truman, Clinton, and Bush I.
So it's clear that President Bush is not making any changes to White House protocal in his decision to stear clear of armed forces funerals. While it is one thing to disagree with his policies, his actions, his words, his choice of personnel and any number of other issues, he should not be criticized for something simply because it is easy to do so.
Since the President first called our armed forces into battle following the terrorist attacks of 2001 he has been heavily criticized in quite a few circles for not attending a single individual funeral service for US personnel KIA in Iraq or Afghanistan. And since I am no fan of President Bush this was something that, initially, I latched on to and said "Ahah! Another example of his disregard for human life!" It's not that simple, though.
Looking back at how other wartime Presidents handled this extremely touchy issue reveals a disparity in how Chief Executives handled this part of their job. Here is an excellent look, written in 2004, on the manner.
Lyndon Johnson attended more than a few services for soldiers killed in Vietnam, some of whom he knew personally, and took the loss of life very hard. This almost certainly (both his emotional devastation at the loss of US lives as well as his sense that the war could not be won) contributed to his decision not to seek re-election. Woodrow Wilson, known as an emotional man, also took services hard for soldiers killed in the First World War, and probably would have been best advised to not attend any, if the example cited by Mr. Baker above is representative.
Franklin Roosevelt did not attend individual services during WWII, but, as with all Presidents, attended general memorial services. The same with Truman, Clinton, and Bush I.
So it's clear that President Bush is not making any changes to White House protocal in his decision to stear clear of armed forces funerals. While it is one thing to disagree with his policies, his actions, his words, his choice of personnel and any number of other issues, he should not be criticized for something simply because it is easy to do so.
posted by joe sweeney at 4:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home