Earlier I posted a question that some took as some sort of propaganda.That was not my intention.It was an actual question,trying to solicit your views.
So,here we go again-I am of the opinion that George Bush should attend at least a few funerals of those who have fallen in battle.I didn't say in my earlier question that the President sends letters of condolence to the families of those who have fallen.I should have.
But the point of the question,which I did not state is: I think Mr.Bush,regardless of tradition,etc.should attend the funerals of at least a few of the war dead.In light of the recent scandal at Walter Reed and the Administration, attempts to implement deep cuts in the VA's budget,I think the President has an obligation to show he is not as disconnected from our troops as he appears to be.
I think that this would be the best way for him to do so.
I would like to
read your views on this.
2007-03-01 06:38:44 · 6 answers · asked by Zapatta McFrench 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Earnest,stop calling me a liar.You post propaganda constantly.You couch yor replies in polite terms,all the while distorting the poster's words and intents.You do it constantly
2007-03-01 06:55:35 · update #1
Sounds reasonable. Maybe even do a few visits to VA Hospitals and Clinics, too. Couldn't hurt.
But, on the flip-side of the coin is definately the question of which fallen soldier's funeral do I attend? Some would say the funerals of the families that support him, but that would become yet another media scandal, or you could impartially pick and choose, but that ends up propagating the idea that someone's son or daughter is more important that another's. Then, what if he goes to the funeral of a family hostile to him? What if one of those family members packs heat, and tries to be stupid?
Sometimes the most well-intended of ideas end up making the worst feeling toes.
2007-03-01 06:45:16 · answer #1 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe a reporter brought that question up a couple of years ago during a press conference, and many people thought it was a very fine idea. But... his mouth speak at the time said the President's agenda is set weeks and sometimes months in advance and that such an impromptu appearance could not be possible. Yak, yak, yak.
2007-03-01 14:47:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And what happened after you posted that. . huh ? You were greatly chastised for your propaganda, and rightly so . Your attempt to 'appear' fair is ridiculous AND you deleted the former question, so that nobody could look at it for themselves .
BTW, many users INFORMED you of what the President does do for the fallen soldiers and their families, so I don't buy this propaganda at all .
EDIT*- Just look at the first answer. . . . had you posted the TRUTH(which you are very aware of)he wouldn't be walking away thinking this nonsense is true !!!
If you were being truthful. . . . you wouldn't have deleted that other 'question' .
2007-03-01 14:48:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I feel this would open a can of worms. How would he pick or choose who's funeral to attend without slighting the feelings of another family of a vet?
2007-03-01 14:49:14 · answer #4 · answered by john g 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your assumption is that he doesnt. I dont know about recent deaths but I know he has attended some earlier on. But yea It would be a good thing to do.
2007-03-01 14:53:47 · answer #5 · answered by sociald 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If his schedule and the families permitted it, I don't see why he couldn't. The fact of the matter remains, he IS the command-in-chief whether he does or not.
"Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die." - Tennyson
2007-03-01 14:57:50 · answer #6 · answered by Michael E 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋