Bush visits families...in ENGLAND!

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Text

How many relatives of American war dead has he visited? I missed those visits on the Fox Cartoon Network. :) (Why hasn't the O'Reilly Bunny been all over this?) Wouldn't that be an opportunity for Bush to show how much he cares? Maybe he could squeeze in a visit between campaign fund raisers now that he has over $200 million dollars in his WAR war chest.

Sheezh....the guy is totally brain dead. No clue.

Here's one father's take:

"Reg Keys, 51, whose son Lance Corporal Thomas Keys was one of six Royal Military Policemen gunned down defending a civilian police station in Al Majar al-Kabir near Basra in June, said he would like to meet the president to tell him that he was responsible for his son's death.

Keys said: "I am totally against his visit. I don't know how he has the nerve to show his face in this country after costing the lives of 54 British soldiers for his own glory.

"I do not see a noble cause. I looked at my son's bullet-riddled body and that did not seem very noble to me.

"He did not die for a noble cause. He was just killed by a mob."



-Robert
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
I heard on Faux News that there will be massive protests when Dub visits and some of fearful for his security.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Well, if it were a soccer match, Bush would be in jeopardy. But, this is just war and death, so I'm sure the protests will be orderly. :)

-Robert
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I heard on Faux News that there will be massive protests when Dub visits and some of fearful for his security.
The Secret Service wants central London turned into a no protest zone. Thier is also a big row going on between Scotland Yard, the Interior Minister, and the Secret Service. The SS wants command of the entire security operation and the Brits aren't going along. The mayor of London has also chimed in against the rather darconian anti protest measures the US wants put in place.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,628
25,456
136
So now the Administration is trying to alienate their most ardent supporter, faaaantastic.

I am throwing the biggest party of all time when he gets booted from office. It pisses me off that the world is using our retarded Muppet of a President as an icon for the US people. :|
It's going to take forever to shake the image he's bestowed on us all.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Bush's record For support of Free speach is rather Laughable for a person that likes to preach the Greatness of Democracy and its fundamental ideas.

He really is a power hungry person and power has corupted him.
 

gistech1978

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2002
5,047
0
0
bush & his admin appears to care more about meddling in the affairs of other countries rather than meddle in affairs here in the states.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Relavent Op/Ed from New York Times

One of the most enduring memories from the funeral of my friend Michael Kelly, who was killed covering the war in Iraq for Atlantic Monthly, was standing by his open grave in a cemetery in Cambridge, Mass., watching an Army officer in dress uniform make his way through the cold, persistent drizzle and up the small hill to Michael's wife and boys. He spoke to the family quietly and then got down on one knee on the wet artificial turf that had been placed there in a vain attempt to shield the mourners from the earth. He gave the boys a flag and a medal.

Michael Kelly was not one of their own. He was brash and brave, but distinctly unmilitary. Yet the Army took pains to make this simple gesture that drove home the way the military honors death: it endows that inescapable but inescapably tragic part of their lives with a sense of moment, of ceremony and dignity, and most of all it faces death squarely and honestly.

This is a central part of the warrior's culture, but it is all too often missing from the way President Bush is running the Iraq war. As the toll nears 400, the casualties remain largely invisible. Apart from a flurry of ceremonies on Veterans Day, this White House has done everything it can to keep Mr. Bush away from the families of the dead, at least when there might be a camera around.

The wounded, thousands of them, are even more carefully screened from the public. And the Pentagon has continued its ban on media coverage of the return of flag-draped coffins to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, denying the dead soldiers and their loved ones even that simple public recognition of sacrifice. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained rather lamely that the ban had been in place since 1991 ? when another President Bush wanted to avoid the juxtaposition of his face and words with pictures of soldiers' coffins.

Some Republicans say it would take up too much of the president's time to attend military funerals or meet the coffins returning from Iraq. "They're coming back continually," the conservative commentator Bay Buchanan said on CNN on Tuesday. "The president cannot be flying up there every single week."

But someone of rank from the White House could and should be at each and every military funeral. Ideally, Mr. Bush would shake the hand of someone who loved every person who dies in uniform ? a small demand on his time in a war in which the casualties are still relatively small. And he has more than enough advisers, cabinet secretaries and other officials so attending funerals should not be such an inconvenience.

The White House talks about preserving the privacy and dignity of the families of the war dead. But if this was really about the families, the president or Vice President Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be handing flags to widows and mothers in the time-honored way. And if protecting the privacy of Americans who are suffering was such a priority, the White House wouldn't call in the cameras to watch Mr. Bush embracing victims of every hurricane, earthquake or suburban California wildfire.

Along with the coverage of these casualties, the coverage of combat in Iraq has virtually ceased. The "embedded" correspondents who reported on the stunningly swift march to Baghdad during the invasion are gone. The Pentagon has ended the program. The ever-upbeat Mr. Rumsfeld likes to say that the attacks on American soldiers are brief and relatively few in number, compared with the number of men in arms in the field in Iraq. But without real news coverage, it's hard to know the truth.

Letters from American soldiers who have died in Iraq, published on the Op-Ed page on Tuesday, suggest that Mr. Rumsfeld's accounting may be highly selective. Shortly before he died on June 17, Pvt. Robert Frantz wrote this to his mother: "We've had random gunfire within a 100-meter radius all night, every night, since I have been here. It kinda scares you the first couple nights, but you tend to get used to it."

The idea of a slow, painful and bloody holding action in which gunfire is a nightly occurrence contrasts sharply, perhaps too sharply for comfort, with the display of overwhelming force, low casualties and lightning-swift conclusions that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld put on in the spring. The administration undoubtedly feels that showing coffins on television or having the president attend funerals would undermine public support for the war. (The ban on covering the arrival of coffins at Dover was in effect during the popular Afghanistan war, but was not enforced.) That seems like more of an acknowledgment of how fragile that support is than any poll yet taken.

The Bush administration hates comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, and many are a stretch. But there is a lesson that this president seems not to have learned from Vietnam. You cannot hide casualties. Indeed, trying to do so probably does more to undermine public confidence than any display of a flag-draped coffin. And there is at least one direct parallel. Thirty-five years ago, at the height of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon took to shipping bodies into the United States in the dead of night to avoid news coverage.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
So where was all this outrage over the guys who died in Afghanistan? Bush hasn't attended any of those funerals yet I didn't see anyone in the media or on this board expressing any angst over that. Why not? Is it because the Iraq war doesn't meet with your seal of approval and you are being more than a little hypocritical in expressing your displeasure now? I would say the answer to that question is yes but I will await any response you care to give.

These guys are being buried IAW the wishes of the families. If full military honors are requested they are being provided IAW all applicable customs, traditions and regulations. None of those include the President.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
CK:

You know, it seems very bizarre, to say the least, that Bush would meet with the families of English dead, but not the families of American dead. Yes, comparisons with Vietnam are, as yet, a stretch, but the broader lessons are there. If Bush had been a veteran and not a drunk AWOL National Guard pilot he might have learned those lessons. This is another reason why I'm in favor of the draft. Every President, preferably, should have had some military service. General Clark is ahead in the polls probably because many people already know or intuit this bit of common sense.

Edit: By the way, great find!

-Robert
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
So where was all this outrage over the guys who died in Afghanistan? Bush hasn't attended any of those funerals yet I didn't see anyone in the media or on this board expressing any angst over that. Why not? Is it because the Iraq war doesn't meet with your seal of approval and you are being more than a little hypocritical in expressing your displeasure now? I would say the answer to that question is yes but I will await any response you care to give.

These guys are being buried IAW the wishes of the families. If full military honors are requested they are being provided IAW all applicable customs, traditions and regulations. None of those include the President.
You don't find it appaling that Bush, who is ultimately responsible for the needless deaths of these soldiers by starting this unnecessary war in Iraq, is trying to sweep them under the rug, not attending a single funeral and blocking TV footage of arriving casualties, as if they don't exist.
Afghanistan was harboring people who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq had nonexistent yet to be discovered WMD's. There is a difference, even if you can't see it.
 

Pers

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,603
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
So where was all this outrage over the guys who died in Afghanistan? Bush hasn't attended any of those funerals yet I didn't see anyone in the media or on this board expressing any angst over that. Why not? Is it because the Iraq war doesn't meet with your seal of approval and you are being more than a little hypocritical in expressing your displeasure now? I would say the answer to that question is yes but I will await any response you care to give.

These guys are being buried IAW the wishes of the families. If full military honors are requested they are being provided IAW all applicable customs, traditions and regulations. None of those include the President.
You don't find it appaling that Bush, who is ultimately responsible for the needless deaths of these soldiers by starting this unnecessary war in Iraq, is trying to sweep them under the rug, not attending a single funeral and blocking TV footage of arriving casualties, as if they don't exist.
Afghanistan was harboring people who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq had nonexistent yet to be discovered WMD's. There is a difference, even if you can't see it.

How convenient of Ultra Quiet to completely disregard the motives in initiating the two different wars.

oh yeah...we're just a bunch of hypocritical morons for being upset that people died for absolutely no reason in Iraq.
 

Pers

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,603
1
0
It's kind of sad to think that Bush is probably more hated globally than Saddam.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
oh yeah...we're just a bunch of hypocritical morons for being upset that people died for absolutely no reason in Iraq.
Exactly. People couldn't have cared less if the President attended funerals when soldiers died in Afghanistan. Now that you're of the opinion that they are dying for "no reason" suddenly it's an issue that the President isn't attending funerals. Hypocritical is exactly the right word. Deal with it.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
oh yeah...we're just a bunch of hypocritical morons for being upset that people died for absolutely no reason in Iraq.
Exactly. People couldn't have cared less if the President attended funerals when soldiers died in Afghanistan. Now that you're of the opinion that they are dying for "no reason" suddenly it's an issue that the President isn't attending funerals. Hypocritical is exactly the right word. Deal with it.
There is a difference. The Afghanistan war was brought upon us by 9/11, Iraq war was brought upon us by Bush. Having unnecessarily sent these soldiers to die, the least Bush can do is attend a funeral of at least one soldier to acknowledge the sacrifice they are making for his unneeded war. Instead he is trying to reduce them to just numbers by barring showing of the actual casualties. Bush apologists can have a different opinion.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
oh yeah...we're just a bunch of hypocritical morons for being upset that people died for absolutely no reason in Iraq.
Exactly. People couldn't have cared less if the President attended funerals when soldiers died in Afghanistan. Now that you're of the opinion that they are dying for "no reason" suddenly it's an issue that the President isn't attending funerals. Hypocritical is exactly the right word. Deal with it.
There is a difference. The Afghanistan war was brought upon us by 9/11, Iraq war was brought upon us by Bush. Having unnecessarily sent these soldiers to die, the least Bush can do is attend a funeral of at least one soldier to acknowledge the sacrifice they are making for his unneeded war. Instead he is trying to reduce them to just numbers by barring showing of the actual casualties. Bush apologists can have a different opinion.

No there isn't a difference except you ( and the rest of the hypocrites) are trying to use the circumstances of their deaths to further your own political views. They are just as dead and they died fighting for their country. The President hasn't attended funerals for any .mil member who died in either war but to the hypocrites who had nothing to say about it till now, it is suddenly an issue because it gives them another opportunity to scream about a war they don't agree with. That is what the issue is, end of story. Not about the soldiers and not about their families because if that was the case you would have made this an issue since we invaded Afghanistan. You didn't, therefore you are hypocrite using a feigned concern over soldiers deaths and their families grief to further your own politics.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
oh yeah...we're just a bunch of hypocritical morons for being upset that people died for absolutely no reason in Iraq.
Exactly. People couldn't have cared less if the President attended funerals when soldiers died in Afghanistan. Now that you're of the opinion that they are dying for "no reason" suddenly it's an issue that the President isn't attending funerals. Hypocritical is exactly the right word. Deal with it.
There is a difference. The Afghanistan war was brought upon us by 9/11, Iraq war was brought upon us by Bush. Having unnecessarily sent these soldiers to die, the least Bush can do is attend a funeral of at least one soldier to acknowledge the sacrifice they are making for his unneeded war. Instead he is trying to reduce them to just numbers by barring showing of the actual casualties. Bush apologists can have a different opinion.

No there isn't a difference except you ( and the rest of the hypocrites) are trying to use the circumstances of their deaths to further your own political views. They are just as dead and they died fighting for their country. The President hasn't attended funerals for any .mil member who died in either war but to the hypocrites who had nothing to say about it till now, it is suddenly an issue because it gives them another opportunity to scream about a war they don't agree with. That is what the issue is, end of story. Not about the soldiers and not about their families because if that was the case you would have made this an issue since we invaded Afghanistan. You didn't, therefore you are hypocrite using a feigned concern over soldiers deaths and their families grief to further your own politics.
Bush sent them to die to further his political views. Hundreds unnecessarily dead for his "Mission Accomplished" photoop. Billions wasted, and more to come. Bush is visiting Brittish soldiers' families to thank them for their sacrifice, but doesn't think it's approprate to visit American soldiers' families and thank them for theirs. That's the real hypocricy. Maybe if you weren't a Bush apologist, you would see it. He has used war for politics ever since 9/11, and now it's coming back to him, and you rightwingers are upset.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
I don't recall Kennedy, LBJ or Nixon attending any funerals of Soldiers killed in battle during Nam. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Bush but I don't believe this is one.


You didn't, therefore you are hypocrite using a feigned concern over soldiers deaths and their families grief to further your own politics.
It sure has that appearance.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
UQ:

What makes you think no one cared about he Afghanistan deaths? I must have missed the thread in which everyone agreed that some war deaths have meaning and others don't.

Your premise has a bad case of polio I'm afraid.

-Robert
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't recall Kennedy, LBJ or Nixon attending any funerals of Soldiers killed in battle during Nam.
Isn't that the whole point?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
oh yeah...we're just a bunch of hypocritical morons for being upset that people died for absolutely no reason in Iraq.
Exactly. People couldn't have cared less if the President attended funerals when soldiers died in Afghanistan. Now that you're of the opinion that they are dying for "no reason" suddenly it's an issue that the President isn't attending funerals. Hypocritical is exactly the right word. Deal with it.
There is a difference. The Afghanistan war was brought upon us by 9/11, Iraq war was brought upon us by Bush. Having unnecessarily sent these soldiers to die, the least Bush can do is attend a funeral of at least one soldier to acknowledge the sacrifice they are making for his unneeded war. Instead he is trying to reduce them to just numbers by barring showing of the actual casualties. Bush apologists can have a different opinion.

No there isn't a difference except you ( and the rest of the hypocrites) are trying to use the circumstances of their deaths to further your own political views. They are just as dead and they died fighting for their country. The President hasn't attended funerals for any .mil member who died in either war but to the hypocrites who had nothing to say about it till now, it is suddenly an issue because it gives them another opportunity to scream about a war they don't agree with. That is what the issue is, end of story. Not about the soldiers and not about their families because if that was the case you would have made this an issue since we invaded Afghanistan. You didn't, therefore you are hypocrite using a feigned concern over soldiers deaths and their families grief to further your own politics.
Bush sent them to die to further his political views. Hundreds unnecessarily dead for his "Mission Accomplished" photoop. Billions wasted, and more to come. Bush is visiting Brittish soldiers' families to thank them for their sacrifice, but doesn't think it's approprate to visit American soldiers' families and thank them for theirs. That's the real hypocricy. Maybe if you weren't a Bush apologist, you would see it. He has used war for politics ever since 9/11, and now it's coming back to him, and you rightwingers are upset.
I'm upset because soldiers died period. Maybe if you weren't such a hypocrite you'd really be upset that they were dead instead of using it as a platform to further your own political opinion. I hear it stings when you get caught being a hypocrite but you should really quit trying to rationalize it and just deal with it.
Just admit that you aren't really upset that soldiers are dying, you really don't care if Bush goes to funerals (if you were you would have had the same comments about Afghanistan), you are just using it as an excuse to put forward your opinion about the war. At least then you ( and the others) would be being honest, still a hypocritical POS, but honest.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: rjain
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't recall Kennedy, LBJ or Nixon attending any funerals of Soldiers killed in battle during Nam.
Isn't that the whole point?
The point is that Presidents don't attend funerals of Soldiers killed in Combat. Does anybody know if Wilson, Roosevelt or Truman ever attended a Fallen Soldiers Funeral during the wars when they were at the helm of the nation?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Red:

Well, attending funerals is different from visiting the parents or wives. Bush IS visiting the parents of dead ENGLISH soldiers. And didn't Clinton have several families of Gulf War victims to the White House?

-Robert
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
What makes you think no one cared about he Afghanistan deaths? I must have missed the thread in which everyone agreed that some war deaths have meaning and others don't.
If you can find the thread where people were showing any kind of opinion at all about Bush not attending funerals then I will change my opinion. Since I know there wasn't one, I can only assume nobody cared.
Your premise has a bad case of polio I'm afraid.
No, my premise is spot on. If it stings, it stings.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY