Why Bush Stays Away
During wartime, a President cannot take on the role of Mourner in Chief
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031208-552146,00.htmlBy CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Monday, Dec. 08, 2003
President Bush's secret visit to Baghdad dramatized his commitment to the war and the troops. But it has not put to rest criticism that he has been unwilling to pay the proper respect to those who fought and died. "It's absolutely appropriate to be honoring our soldiers overseas in battle on a day like Thanksgiving," said Chris Lehane, a top adviser to presidential candidate Wesley Clark. But that's not sufficient. "It is more important to honor them every day," including "to appropriately honor the heroes coming back in caskets."
When 19 Italians were killed in Nasiriyah, they returned home to a dramatic public ceremony attended by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. If Italy, why not America?
Because Italy is not America. The U.S. is carrying the fight at the epicenter of the war, the Sunni triangle. Italy is not. Loss for Italy has been (thus far) but a single event. American losses are daily, constant.
To be fair to the fallen, the President would have to be at Dover nearly every day. Why this soldier, why this patrol, why the crew of this shot-down helicopter and not another?
Bush's critics charge he is avoiding any public identification with the returning dead so as not to jeopardize his re-election. It is a scurrilous charge, and demonstrably false. Do the following thought experiment: imagine the election is not a year from now but was held a week ago. The President is re-elected. He is a lame duck and will never run for office again. Is there any doubt that he would continue precisely the same policy of not making public shows of grief?
No doubt whatsoever.