This editorial in Time magazine.

There was an editorial in Time about Bush not going to any funerals. One of their defenses of it was that there are so many dead that Bush would never be able to go to all of the funerals anyways. For starters, I don't think that Bush I, Clinton, or Reagan went to all of the funerals for soldiers who died in combat under their command but they went to some, because they knew that they had a responsibility to honor the dead. But now Bush should not be expected to go to any of these funerals because there are too many dead. How flimsy an excuse.

Another defense is that the terrorsits must not see our president mourn because we need to win. I think it sends the message that our president could give a sh*t about the dead. Furthermore, the writer says that Bush cares about the soldiers. If he cared so much, why did he cut the combat pay and the health benefits of the troops during a war. During a war, that should be one of the last things you cut. If his lack of attendance does not show that he does not care, the benefits certainly do.

In any event, I am sick of the media giving him a free pass. He lead this effort. He has a responsibility to face the consequences, no matter how damning they may be.

He's afraid a mother of a dead soldier will bring a protest sign. Must not see negative images

More bloviating from the gasbag.
Why I don't read Time anymore.:puke:

... memorial service. He hasn't gone to any of them either.

Lie, Cheat, Steal but look good while at it is the PUBs way for doing things. Take a Hard Look. Its everywhere.

he just does not want to go. Afraid someone might try to hurt him or something. Besides it would interfere with his schedule. Up early, treadmill, nap, football while eating pretzels, naps during game while eating pretzels, then a shot or two of whiskey and it's bedtime for not-so-curious george.

flies to $2,000 a plate fund raiser, naps on plane.

I do believe he knows it, and that his staff knows it, too. Being present at one of these funerals and having to face the widows and the children -- and the REALITY of what he is doing to America -- would get into him in ways that he (and his cabal) do not want. Just complicates shit. Easier not to know. Directly.

Bush lives and operates on emotion and raw, cunning instinct. He does not have a cultivated intellect -- as we know so well -- but he does have an unshakeable sense of personal and family privilidge that drives him arrogantly forward, and he also has a soft (and exquisitely vulnerable) chest and belly, in an emotional context. Direct, hard challenges to this soft underbelly are his ultimate weakness.

That's why Bush stays in his shell. He only sticks his head out of that shell when he knows its safe -- both physically and emotionally.

When I was in high school, we were expected to read Time Magazine for our social studies classes, because it was well regarded by our teachers as a good journalistic news source. Now only Newsweek seems to dare to criticise Bush occasionally. Yet, the last time I was at the market, Newsweek wasn't anywhere to be seen. I am wondering if it sold out? In my freeper town, I doubt it, so either the distributor or the manager of the market "forgot" to put it out or maybe it goes even higher than this.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

potential is too paltry. Therefore he is not allowed to go. If either of these two facts change he will attend.

The president, any president, showing up at some soldier's funeral is as phoney as that Thanksgiving turkey in Iraq. Do you want the president of the United States at your loved one's funeral. I sure do not. I've seen what goes into a presidential visit, and it ain't pretty or cheap. Why should some bereaved family have to put up with a swarm of press and Secret Service, metal detectors, loads of press trucks with dishes attached outside their home on Main St., etc. just so a politician can grandstand with them as a backdrop. No thanks.

or could raise money.