Bush Loses Fear of the Dead

Umm... What the hell was your point? That the President gives speeches over people that have died? Yes, let's find some way to put a bad spin on that one.

my point is this president--either by his own choice or at the behest of his advisers; it makes no difference because its shameful either way--has gone out of his way to avoid attending, and thus being photographed, at memorial services for military personnel who died in service to their country in iraq.

let's find some way to put a bad spin on that one.

it spins itself pretty badly without my help.

I agree wit ya Kingbee, Bush is a cunt (no pun intended), I sure as hell didnt vote for him. So dont look at me.

Also, do you know that song- about "I'm a king bee buzzin round ma hive"? it's bluesy with a funky jazz fusion twist. Perhaps ur named after it?Just wondered...
Smeeeelll ya later

love Dylxx

im very familiar with it (there are lots of covers but authorship is generally conceded to slim harpo--if you havent heard him doin it, you should) and thats the song from which i took my nick. verrrrry insightful!

bush will, of course, benefit by association with the event--especially through poignant images that show bush in close proximity to the casket.

Did you see Kerry at the Reagan Library today? (Somehow I doubt he rode the bus in and waited in line.)

of course he didnt. im not sure what your point is tho cuz this has nothing to do with kerry

bush is the only president in my memory (which goes back pretty far) to actively avoid being photographed anywhere near the casket or graveside of soldiers fighting in a war over which he presides..

You don't think it's remotely relevant to point out that Kerry also (apparently tried to) "benefit by association with the event--especially through poignant images that show (him) in close proximity to the casket. " After all, it was Kerry, not Bush who jumped out there with this image. That, despite your insinuations, Bush hasn't made sure to butt his way past the citizenship and get good prime mourning coverage.

If Bush were out there with soldiers' caskets wouldn't you then be blogging about how crass and insensitive he was to be trying to make political hay with them?

And in case you still don't get it. I doubt you'd be accusing Bush of getting political mileage out of Reagan's death if this wasn't an election year. That being the case, Kerry's actions become relevant as a rebutal.

Your point about how Bush has handled the soldiers' caskets and funerals is worth making. The rest of your article, I feel, is b.s. (bovine scatology).

It could have been handled much less inflammatorily by saying something along the lines of "While you see Bush mourning Reagan this week, keep in mind those who we have not seen him mourn: the dead and wounded American military from Iraq."

Then you could have gone on at any length you desired about how he has handled that situation. But to subtitle your article "It Really IS All About Image" and imply that he is only being seen with Reagan's casket because it is politically advantageous (especially when the only one who has been seen doing anything that could be accused of same is his opposition) is disgusting.

Most of your article is perfectly fine, but the lines

"regardless of his sincerity (and i don't for a minute question his grief or sympathy for the reagan family), bush will, of course, benefit by association with the event--especially through poignant images that show bush in close proximity to the casket. "

cross over the line. I think by feeling it necessary to insert a half-hearted disclaimer of "(and i don't for a minute question his grief or sympathy for the reagan family)" in the middle you knew that. Without those lines, it is about

bush is the only president in my memory (which goes back pretty far) to actively avoid being photographed anywhere near the casket or graveside of soldiers fighting in a war over which he presides..

With those lines it covers far more territory than perhaps you intended.

It was very poorly worded, especially at a time of national mourning. (I would like to think the hasty wording said something you didn't intend it to.) You really shouldn't be surprised if you receive negative reaction.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the president does not want to bring unwanted attention and publicity to military familes?

(especially when the only one who has been seen doing anything that could be accused of same is his opposition)

i suppose i could have also mentioned kerry cancelling two major fundraisers--one on each coast--that have been in planning since march in order to 'butt his way' (he remains a senator does he not--with the deference normally attached to that office as well as security considerations associated with a presumptive nominee?) past those waiting in line. i might also have questioned why--considering the relatively short trip from sea island to dc--bush waited til after the g8 meeting, but i didnt.

i wasnt in a hurry. i was and am angry that bush is more concerned about his image than he is doing the right thing. i doubt anyone is expecting a 'gettysburg address' from this president ('let's roll' pretty much alerted us to that). still it might be fitting and just for him to show some respect for those whove given their all at his command.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the president does not want to bring unwanted attention and publicity to military familes?

to buy into that notion, i'd also have to conclude his predecessors were a cruel and insensitive bunch for having disregarded those considerations over the past 200+ years.

You've made an excellent point. The very least this man could do is give honor to those fallen in his war.

i suppose i could have also mentioned kerry cancelling two major fundraisers--one on each coast--that have been in planning since march in order to 'butt his way'

That can also be seen as political grandstanding -- finding a way to put the focus on himself and look good at a time when nobody would be paying much attention to him anyway -- if one wanted to nit-pick and ascribe negative intentions to people just because they were from the other side of the political aisle.

i might also have questioned why--considering the relatively short trip from sea island to dc--bush waited til after the g8 meeting, but i didnt.

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, huh, Kingbee?

i was and am angry that bush is more concerned about his image than he is doing the right thing.

You really don't know what he cares about. You only have an opinion informed and clouded by your negative emotions. Are you quite sure your hatred hasn't clouded your judgment and rationality?

You've made an excellent point. The very least this man could do is give honor to those fallen in his war.

It is a legitimate point. Unfortunately he went beyond that in the way he chose to express it. I continue to find the purposeful accusation of Bush using Reagan's death for political gain disgusting.

That can also be seen as political grandstanding -- finding a way to put the focus on himself and look good at a time when nobody would be paying much attention to him anyway -- if one wanted to nit-pick and ascribe negative intentions to people just because they were from the other side of the political aisle.

it would be very expensive and self-destructive grandstanding at best, and to what effect?

Are you quite sure your hatred hasn't clouded your judgment and rationality?

hatred is galaxies away from anger.

you seem to want to believe(and ive read your basis for that opinion) that i feel the reagan funeral is being orchestrated as a campaign photo-op. i may be stupid but im not yet that crazy.

the image to which i refer in the subtitle is the image thats not viewable above the text because it doesnt exist. i do a lot of online searching and im generally successful in finding what's available. ive tried several times over the past several years (and did it again before posting this article) to find a single shot of bush attending a funeral for any member of our armed forces who died in combat in iraq or afghanistan.

ive been unusually tied up today but i did catch some live coverage of reagan's body being offloaded upon its arrival at andrews. as this was happening, the commentators described how great a role the military plays in a state funeral for their deceased commander-in-chief.

do i really need to explain further why i find the current president's effort to disassociate himself from the funerals of their brothers and sisters in arms so unworthy of his office?

you seem to want to believe(and ive read your basis for that opinion) that i feel the reagan funeral is being orchestrated as a campaign photo-op. i may be stupid but im not yet that crazy.

No, but (apparently) you went out of your way to imply Bush would purposefully use it for political gain. I gave you ample opportunity to say that wasn't what you meant. I even purposefully gave you an out to say that the wording didn't say what you meant. You never refuted it. You're response, instead was

i wasnt in a hurry. i was and am angry

Which can hardly be taken as anything other than saying "I did mean it."

No, I don't think you are either crazy or stupid. I really hoped you would say "That wasn't what I meant" and was deeply disappointed you didn't.

it would be very expensive and self-destructive grandstanding at best, and to what effect?

I could make the case, but won't because I've only been playing devil's advocate to make a point. (As I've said before, I don't particularly like Bush and didn't vote for him. In fact I was opposed to the current Iraq war. I didn't feel we could wait 10 years and make up for his father's cowardice at not having taken out Saddam to begin with.) What I don't like is baseless attacks born of nothing more than dislike. Which is why I've repeatedly separated what I see as the two separate points -- one I still think was unintentional -- that I saw in that article. One, I feel, was valid; one not. (Playing "devil's" advocate for Bush. Make of that what you will. )

If I wanted to play devil's advocate for why Bush hasn't allowed the caskets to be photographed, etc., actions which seem to be contrary to all presidents prior to him, I'd say that we live in a media age unlike any before, where such images would be analyzed ad nauseum practically 24/7, used and abused by political enemies, ultimately bringing disrespect to the dead.

But I think the real reason is fear that such graphic evidence before a wary public's eyes would more quickly erode support. They saw what looking at all the returning dead did to America during Vietnam and decided they were going to make sure that didn't happen with this war. I can't prove that, but that's my opinion of what's behind this policy.

So can we finally agree that you didn't mean to imply Bush would purposefully use Reagan's death for political gain or not?

(I hope you are not taking this negatively. I consider this a conversation between friendly equals and hope you do too.)

By the way...

(and ive read your basis for that opinion)

... are you referring to something other than my comments in this thread?

first of all, a conversation between friendly equals is a very good description of the way i feel about it. if ive seemed to be abrupt, i apologize. like i said, its been a pretty hectic week and i havent had as much time to spend here as id hoped.

until i reread all of this one more time (hey i can be pretty obtuse), i wasn't understanding the issue that was causing you such concern because, as jaded as i may be, i never considered the possibility that bush--or anyone else--would deliberately use reagans death or his funeral for political gain.

it does seem fairly obvious it will work to bush's benefit (in a way that, say, jimmy carter's death would not).

thats all i meant to convey by saying "bush will, of course, benefit by association".

the reason i didnt think to address this earlier was...confusion. if youll read back through the thread, perhaps youll see why. you seemed to be saying that kerry was somehow attempting to convert the event to HIS advantage. it wasnt till you said ' you went out of your way to imply Bush would purposefully use it for political gain' that the light went on.

i appreciate your efforts to clarify the situation. hopefully we're both on the same page now in this regard.

as to reason why this administration is so phobic about the returning caskets,im not sure it has anything to do with media or vietnam (at least 2 of the five previous presidents were considerably more media savvy than bush and they saw no reason to avoid honoring the casualties of their wars). i really cant imagine why its being handled so badly

... are you referring to something other than my comments in this thread?

not at all. i meant id read and reread your comments in this thread

Steady