Will President Bush go to the funeral for his friend Ken Lay?
» Breaking News
RNC Spent Almost $30,000 More In Clothes For Palin
Mumbai Terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab Promised $1,250 For Attack
Economy Kills Broadway’s Latest Version Of “Grease”
Katie Price: Dwight Yorke Ignores Disabled Son Harvey
Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe Writing Book
I can picture the Oliver Willis no-win response to this. If the President attends, it’ll be shameful, because he hasn’t attended funerals for servicemen killed in Iraq; if he doesn’t attend, he deliberately skipped the funeral to avoid political damage.
What Dana said.
So being trapped in a rhetorical corner–of his own making–somehow, in the eyes of Republicans, frees Bush of the obligation to pay personal respects to the soldiers who’ve died in his Iraq debacle…
Ladies and gentlemen, The distinguished gentlemen from the great State of GOP Denial have the floor.
From the Kansas City Experience web site:
“Truman went on to the US Senate in 1935 and the vice presidency in 1944. He returned to Kansas City for (Tom)Pendergast’s (the KC political boss)funeral in 1945. Pendergast had served jail time for tax evasion and Truman was widely criticized for attending the services, but Truman simply contended Pendergast had been a friend.”
“If the President attends, it ll be shameful, because he hasn t attended funerals for servicemen killed in Iraq; if he doesn t attend, he deliberately skipped the funeral to avoid political damage.”
Sucks right? But of course he could have avoided any of this by attending some funerals instead of going to Dunkin Donuts and not being so deeply in the pocket of big business.
Also, doesn’t it bother any of you cons that Bush is lying to your face by having Snow deny that Bush and Lay were friends?
Interesting hypotheticals aside, the actual answer is, “No.”
acquaintances
For JWG:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1680264.htm
Sucks right? But of course he could have avoided any of this by attending some funerals…
That’s the problem…Bush’s appearance at the funeral of any soldier would be turned into a huge political baseball bat. That’s not what funerals are for. Perhaps you would prefer that he use a few services to make a political point. Of course, if he went, that’s exactly what he’d be accused of.
By the way, does anyone have any information about Bush being invited to a funeral?
Bottom line: the silly notion that Bush is not sensitive to the sacrifices of our servicemen is belied by the enthusiastic rounds of applause (as opposed to polite, professional acknowledgment) he invariably gets when before a military audience…those men and women most certainly know they are appreciated by the President.
link?
JWG, try yesterday’s gaggle. I believe the phrase used to describle it was “acquaintance”.
So, your premise is that the military applauding perhaps louder than they are told to for the president of the United States, as though they got up and booed Clinton when he was commander in cheif, proves how much respect he has for them in spite of, well you know, the whole not-providing-adequate-armor thing, the cutting-veteran’s-benefits-thing and everything, and doesnt suggest more of a “need to believe” given the circumstances of being in a war that more and more people fear is unwinnable. Have I summarized your bottom line accurately do you think?
shared priorities
Did the Lays attend any of the Bush’s children’s events? Vise versa?
I can picture the Oliver Willis no-win response to this. If the President attends, it ll be shameful, because he hasn t attended funerals for servicemen killed in Iraq; if he doesn t attend, he deliberately skipped the funeral to avoid political damage.
I don’t have to picture the Repugnican’ts win-win response to this, because the Reich wing nuts have already spelled it out here. If the President attends, it ll be awesome, because he attended the funeral of a good friend; if he doesn t attend, he deliberately skipped the funeral to avoid partisan political exploitation of his attendance.
And again you say it, as though repeating makes it true. If I were to psychoanalyze I might suggest this is a further indicator of “needing to believe” than anything. Tell me then, because clearly I’m too ignorant to understand, what has this president done to show that he supports the troops, that he “appreciates” them? Has he really done anything that different from Clinton (aside from, you know, starting a war)? Why, if I accept that the troops genuinely believe that the prezodent supports them and it is not borne out of a fear, why do they think this?
I think this image from dependable renegade says it best:
http://www.bushspeaks.com/img/bush_values.gif
http://derenegade.blogspot.com/2006/07/ken-lay-dead.html
Wow… never seen anyone use so many words to basically say “nuh-uh” before. Funny thing is though if you read it again, I say that that is in fact your point, even though I say that it is in spite of several items listed that might, to another person, suggest that premise is wrong. Parsed without those items it would read “So, your premise is that the military applauding louder [...] proves how much respect he has for them[...]” which I believe is what you were actually saying, and is not “off completely”, and if you will remember your logic classes, works as a premise because it implies a conditional. Your restated premise is actually a statement, and I might ask you if you can objectively prove it, but we both know you really can’t.
Note, before the clever-patrol comes to be smart at me, this here isnt just me using a lot of words to say “nuh-uh,” since I’m actually developing my point and attempting to contradict another, not just saying “No” and then repeating myself.
Also, its possible that in the context of Logic I may have used the term premise incorrectly, and if I have I apologize. Now, freed of having to attack idiosyncracies you can now attack the substance of my statement.
Rex…
Thanks for the interesting article.
All of the charges you made against this president were made against the previous president (when I was on active duty) in one form or another. One truth known by anyone in any military in history: the equipment is never good enough and the leadership is always clueless.
This President appreciates our servicemen, and they know it.
Rex…
No, your summary is off completely.
A more accurate summary is as follows:
…those men and women most certainly know they are appreciated by the President.
…because clearly I m too ignorant to understand, what has this president done to show that he supports the troops, that he appreciates them?
He lets them do their jobs, and demonstrates faith in their ability to be successful.
Look Rex, I’ve spent my entire adult life either in the military or working very closely with those serving in the military. That’s my world. Granted, that certainly shades my perception of the rest of the world, but suffice it to say that the people with whom I live and work feel comfortable with President Bush in command of our military and this war. Of course I am speaking in generalities, but if I must use generalities I would rather have them formed by people I know (and who have been in-theater recently…in fact I’m having lunch today with a soldier home on R&R.) If they are all wrong in your view, then so be it.
I will avoid pedantic exposition on how I feel that “comfort” with this president is precisely the problem and the reason he’s allowed to commit his particular brand of evil. Instead I think it incumbent upon me to ask: Firstly, how does failing to provide sufficient armor and equipment (to such a degree that a soldier felt it necessary to publically ask Rumsfeld himself, to a round of applause) mesh with “letting them do their jobs?”
Secondly, as far as Bush demonstrating faith… well I mean he has to doesnt he? I mean even if every professional in the world reaches the conclusion that you cant force freedom on a people at gunpoint, he’d still have to say “well I still believe in them,” wouldnt he? I mean even if he doesnt believe it himself, he would still have to “demonstrate faith” wouldnt he? So what does that even prove?
Thirdly… oh dammit I’m making one of Franks patented list of questions arent I… well nuts to it, Thirdly, given what is known about failure to plan for the war and the “afterparty”, the cuts in veterans benefits, and Bush’s statement (which I right now cant research but know exists) that he basically doesnt intend to bring the troops back during his administration (demonstrating to me at least a lack of faith in their ability to perform), what reason do you and your acquaintences have to be “comfortable” with this man?
Rex…
It is pointless to debate an endless series of your issues with Bush, only to arrive back at your only possible conclusion: I am wrong, all Republicans are wrong, and my widely sampled swath of active duty military friends, family and acquaintances are all wrong about this president.
Next time you see Bush in front of a military audience, and they cheer raucously, you draw your conclusions and I will draw mine.
Shorter Scratch:
I cannot refute your argument, so :-p
Yeah, but Scratch, don’t you find it unique that a soldier asks the Secretary of Defense why his equipment isn’t better?
Rex…
The equipment is never good enough. Any army in history, any point in time, you can find a soldier to ask his commander why his equipment isn’t better. I myself have asked such questions. No soldier is unique in that respect and this president is not unique in that respect.
I will not debate point by point with you across the broad spectrum of your dissatisfaction with the president. I guess the troops and I are just too dumb to know what Mr. Bush is really up to.
God Needed a Former Energy CEO with a Knack for Creative Accounting in Heaven: Kenneth Lay 1942-2006…
Former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay is now the newest angel on Heaven’s corporate board….
You do not have the right to pretend I am monster enough to call the troops stupid. On this point I dont care that you have served in the military, the fact that you feel the need to conflate me with arrogant hatred for our brave servicemen and women and our glorious war-dead is abominable. That phrasing is yours sir, not mine, and to pretend otherwise makes you, not I, the monster.
You still have not argued against my point, provided no sensible, objective, or logical backing for your argument, and have even said that you do not intend to bother, and have instead resorted to personal attacks against my character. I am forced therefore to assume that you concede defeat.
You Lose. Good day, sir.
But you havent been debating them. You havent been denying them, or their relevance, you havent even been addressing them. All you’re basically saying is “That doesnt matter, because the troops applaud him, and from this I infer that they love him, which I take to mean that he loves them back” and havent done a single thing to show how your logic is even plausible. You cant even show that, if Clinton had started a war (or okay, any military action on scane with this one) that they wouldnt be applauding him the same way. You’re not debating, you’re just trying to dismiss every issue I and for the record many who currently serve in the military now have with this president and his administration. My conclusion is not that you and your friends are simply wrong, but rather that you are mistaken. Since you have done nothing to suggest you even think that my argument is incorrect, (outside of returning again and again to your only datum point, that the soldiers applaud Bush) am I to assume that you concede my point?
So much for Mr. Bush’s adherence to loyalty over partisanship.
With regard to the troops applauding Bush:
The saying “Salute the rank, not the man” comes to mind here.
That said, it is an interesting quandary as to whether Bush will attend Ken Lay’s funeral. But that’s how it is sometimes.
duros…
…don t you find it unique that a soldier asks the Secretary of Defense why his equipment isn t better?
Not at all. I had the opportunity to ask the Commandant of the Marine Corps a very pointed question about training once (training that was lacking, in my opinion.) I’ve been in many other forums with zingers from the crowd. The troops love it and the questions are always out there.
Scratch, I don’t doubt that you are “connected” with the military, but at what level?
I only ask because:
1. The officers and the grunts exist in different worlds. One tries not jeapordizing their “careers” and the others trying to stay alive while the first group doesn’t jeapordize their careers. Polls from these groups vary widely in who they support and why.
2. With an all volunteer army there is a pre-disposition to believe in the cause, especially for those that signed up after September 11th. In a form of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy what is in it for those orderd to fight to make an effort to keep abreast of the nuanced arguments forwarded by Bush? Let’s call it “the I don’t want to know, so I don’t have to be distracted and die” policy. Stupidity has little or nothing to do with it.
Something else that is not mentioned is that only once did Bush appear in front of a captive audience. That was a northeast event concerning No Child Left Behind, and he got roundly booed. That mistake was never made again. Do you EVER see a possibility of this at a military event? Don’t you think the first class of military know who in the second class of military can be trusted not to show displeasure while Bush is preaching to the choir?
Ken Lay was an erstwhile supporter of Bush, and it’s highly unlikely Bush would be where he is today without him. Ironically Lay wouldn’t likely be where he is today without his connections to Bush. Whether or not Bush shows up to pay his respects their co-joined places in infamy has already been recorded in the annals of the Cons - one Neo and the other the good old fashioned kind - but it all ends up the same in the end.
By the way Rex, I like your style.
mjb earlier: he could have avoided any of this by attending some funerals instead of going to Dunkin Donuts…
mjb now: No one said he s not sensitive to their sacrifices.
I think it’s fair to interpret the first quote as a statement on his sensitivity to their sacrifices.
Rex…
I do not consider it “monstrous” to think that the troops and I are stupid. But that is the impression you give when you insist on arguing fine details when the point I made is that this president is, by and large, very popular among the military and those close to the military. Now why would these brave servicemen and women behave that way if they felt or knew that the president did not appreciate them? It’s as if you wish to show that those who cheer him do so in ignorance of your menu of issues. In true fact, they do not. Case in point: I asked the young soldier I just lunched with about armor…he said that all his vehicles had it, and that it worked well…but it was a two-edged sword because it made the Humvees tend to roll over off road. I was tempted to ask him why Bush hadn’t designed a better vehicle…
Though we didn’t talk politics, he did say that he enjoyed his work–though it includes foot patrols and a couple mortar attacks weekly–, thinks it is worthwhile, and is looking forward to re-enlisting. He also said they had all the parts and equipment they needed, for what it’s worth.
“the silly notion that Bush is not sensitive to the sacrifices of our servicemen is belied by the enthusiastic rounds of applause (as opposed to polite, professional acknowledgment) he invariably gets when before a military audience& ”
No one said he’s not sensitive to their sacrifices.
Oh my, I have been burned most severely, because the fact that the question was given to him by a reporter (and I have no doubt that you can in fact prove that particular reporter is, as you say, Anti-war, and that you arent just saying that because all media r teh 3vil librul) means that the question is not at all a valid point to raise, and the audience applause that followed it was also instigated specifically by that one reporter alone because whoever it is weilds god like control over all people, and also kiss my ass.
Chum…
Thanks for the good points.
Most of my friends are officers, but I do hear from enlisted folks as well. In general, and I assure you I mean no offense by this, I think your impression of the military is a bit “movie-ish.” That is, I have not observed the type of control you assume exists over who is in a military audience. This is based upon an audience I was in myself (for Clinton,) two that I have heard described by my brother and a close friend (for Bush,) and just my general experience with the military. There may or may not be some cherry picking for those who sit on the stage or who are in special photo ops–common sense dictates you avoid the guy who dropped trou during the parade last month–but the bulk of the crowd is just going to be several companies or squadrons or whatever from that base.
Great point, number 2. No argument with that.
I Wonder……
Will Oliver Willis join Cindy Sheehan’s rolling hunger strike?…
President Bush and Ken Lay were friends?
If so, why can’t he go?
You liberals can be stranger than usual, at times
Yes, and because it would be a public embarassment for the President to honor the life of a man who has destroyed the lives of so many and had so recently been found guilty of numerous crimes to that effect. Or hadn’t that occured to you, Captain Clever?
I only have time for one Rex-
Funny- you mean the soldier who was fed the question by the anti-war reporter?
“It appears all you liberals are exercized over this dilemma.”
I’m not. When President Clinton eulogized President Nixon, he said you have to judge someone by their whole record. As I noted above, when he was Vice President, Harry Truman went to the funeral of Tom Pendergast, the Kansas City political boss and convicted tax evader. Though severely criticized for doing so, he stated that Pendergast had been a friend. If President Bush is invited to the funeral and decides to attend, I think all he has to say is Ken Lay was a friend, and this is a time to remember his whole life. Other issues, if any, can wait until later.
Out of curiosity, Scratch, when you were in the Clinton crowd was there like pride as there appears to be at a current Bush event? I ask because we were told by the right noise machine how much Clinton was reviled by the military, and I was wondering if that your sense of the esprit de corps much the same? Personalities aside, did you respect Clinton as the Commander and Chief? Would those you know have marched to hell in back if he said it were necessary?
Just to see a president would leave many people in awe, regardless of the caliber. Most civil people would show respect, especially at a respectful event. Rummy put himself out there and wanted to mix it up with the troops, and was fair game as a result. I don’t get the sense that presidential military events are on a par with a Town Hall meeting. Those are more the events I was alluding to where you gotta be connected, and properly dressed to get a seat, and vetted to get a question in.
It appears all you liberals are exercized over this dilemma.
I really don’t know when anyone chooses to attend a funeral out of respect for the deceased.
Now, if Ken Lay had been sodomizing the President, he would of course be entitled to his privacy, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Chum…
The answer to every question in your first paragraph is yes.
Interestingly, I did not actually sit through the Clinton event…my beeper went off while I was in line at the metal detector, and I had to run off to perform some duties involving the President’s plans for later that day.. Some of my friends who stayed behind said the speech was OK and the crowd was cordial. It is no exaggeration to say that Clinton was not popular in the military, but I would think it a rare case to see anyone disrespecful at a speech on base, hand-picked or not. At this same visit, some military dependants protested near the base, with signs and everything. I thought this was disgusting and embarrassing, and I know of no other case of this happening.
“I think it s fair to interpret the first quote as a statement on his sensitivity to their sacrifices.”
Scratch,
Fair enough. Didn’t mean that literally. I’m sure he’s sensitive in his own way, but what I think shows callousness is to beat into their and their families’ heads that if we leave Iraq their deaths/injuries would have been in vain. Conflating a soldier’s death with some abstract idea of “success” of a mission is cruel in my mind. If a soldier obeys an order and dies or gets wounded, his/her sacrifice is a thing unto itself which deserves to be evaluated on its own merits.